State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557

Background

In 1998, 16-year-old Daniel Lee Jones participated in a premeditated stabbing that killed Scott Catenacci; Jones pled no contest to first degree murder and was sentenced to life in 1999.
After Miller v. Alabama and this court’s retroactivity ruling in State v. Mantich, Jones’s life sentence (imposed when he was a juvenile) was vacated and he was granted resentencing in 2015.
At the 2016 mitigation/resentencing hearing Jones presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development, family background evidence, prison behavior records, and a psychological evaluation indicating low risk of future violence.
The district court expressly considered Jones’s age at offense, mentality, background, motivation, offense severity, mitigation hearing evidence, and factors listed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02(2).
The court resentenced Jones to 80 years to life with credit for time served and statutory parole eligibility at age 56; Jones appealed, arguing the sentence was (1) a de facto life without parole, (2) unconstitutional for lack of specific age-related findings, and (3) disproportionate/excessive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 80-to-life is a de facto life without parole (Eighth Amendment)	Jones: parole eligibility at 56 effectively denies meaningful opportunity for release given life expectancy; constitutes cruel and unusual punishment	State: parole eligibility, consideration of release, and sentencing within statutory scheme satisfies Miller and provides meaningful opportunity	Court: Not unconstitutional; parole eligibility at 56 and court’s statements gave a meaningful opportunity for release; rejected life-exempt claim
Whether sentencing court violated due process by not making explicit findings about age-related characteristics	Jones: court failed to make specific findings (e.g., irreparable corruption vs. transient immaturity) required by Miller/Montgomery	State: no categorical fact-finding required where sentence retains parole possibility; court considered statutory and customary factors	Court: No error; specific findings unnecessary absent a life-without-parole sentence and the record shows consideration of § 28-105.02 factors
Whether the sentence is disproportional to the offender/offense (Eighth Amendment)	Jones: his youth, maturation, and rehabilitation warrant lesser sentence; the punishment should be graduated and proportioned	State: crime was planned, brutal, and involved concealment; severity is justified by facts	Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate; facts support a severe sentence and court properly weighed youth and culpability
Whether trial court abused discretion / imposed excessive sentence	Jones: sentence excessive given mitigation evidence and improvements	State: sentencing within statutory limits and supported by record and statutory factors	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and constitutionally permissible

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment; individualized sentencing required)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller rule applies retroactively; juveniles must have meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (applied Miller retroactively in Nebraska; grounds for resentencing juveniles previously given mandatory life)
State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957 (2017) (life expectancy is relevant but not dispositive to meaningful-opportunity analysis)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434 (2016) (no requirement for specific findings of irreparable corruption when sentence allows parole)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (Eighth Amendment review of sentencing is a question of law)