State v. Jones
297 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Daniel Lee Jones, age 16 at the time, pled no contest to first-degree murder for a premeditated, group stabbing in 1998 and was originally sentenced to life imprisonment in 1999.
- After Miller v. Alabama and Nebraska's implementing statute (§ 28-105.02), Jones moved for postconviction relief; his life sentence was vacated in 2015 and the case remanded for resentencing.
- At the 2016 mitigation/resentencing hearings Jones presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development, a psychological evaluation finding low risk of future violence, family-background testimony, and prison behavior records.
- The district court stated it considered age, mentality, background, § 28-105.02(2) mitigating factors, Miller/Montgomery principles, and the heinous, planned nature of the crime.
- The court resentenced Jones to 80 years to life, with credit for time served and statutory parole eligibility at age 56; Jones appealed claiming Eighth Amendment and due process violations and disproportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 80-to-life with parole at 56 is a de facto life-without-parole (Eighth Amendment) | Sentence functionally denies meaningful opportunity for release (geriatric parole); life expectancy makes parole illusory | Parole eligibility provides a constitutionally sufficient meaningful and realistic opportunity for release | Court rejected Jones’ claim; parole at 56 is not unconstitutional under Miller/Montgomery and precedent (Smith) |
| Whether due process required explicit factual findings about age-related characteristics | Court must make specific findings (e.g., "irreparable corruption") to show it considered juvenile characteristics | No categorical finding required when sentence includes parole; announcing consideration of statutory and customary factors suffices | Court held no error—specific factfinding not required where parole remains possible (per Garza and other Nebraska precedent) |
| Whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate | Jones argued youth, rehabilitation, and comparative resentencing data show disproportionality | State pointed to premeditation, planning, execution, concealment, and statutory framework permitting up to life | Court found sentence not grossly disproportionate given crime seriousness and offender’s role; Eighth Amendment proportionality claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller principles apply retroactively; need for individualized juvenile sentencing consideration)
- State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (Nebraska decision applying Miller retroactively and outlining juvenile resentencing principles)
- State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957 (2017) (parole eligibility and life expectancy considerations; meaningful opportunity analysis)
- State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434 (2016) (no requirement of explicit "irreparable corruption" findings when parole is possible)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (Eighth Amendment sentencing review as a question of law)