State v. Mantich
295 Neb. 407
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In 1993, then-15-year-old Douglas Mantich participated in a gang-related carjacking/abduction during which Henry Thompson was shot and left dead; Mantich admitted at times he shot Thompson and later recanted at trial.
- Mantich was convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder (felony murder) and use of a weapon; originally sentenced to life imprisonment plus 5–20 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After Miller v. Alabama, Mantich obtained postconviction relief and was resentenced following a hearing that considered evidence of adolescent development, psychological assessments, prison records (122 misconduct reports over 1995–2015), educational achievements, and testimony describing him as a model inmate.
- At resentencing, the court imposed 90 years’ to 90 years’ imprisonment on the murder conviction (consecutive 5–20 years remained for the weapon count), and Mantich appealed.
- Appellant challenged the sentence as (1) a de facto life without parole, (2) grossly disproportionate given his youth and rehabilitation, (3) imposed without adequate consideration of youth, and (4) lacking procedural safeguards required by due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-year term is a de facto life sentence barred by the Eighth Amendment | Mantich: 90 years plus consecutive term is effectively life without parole for a juvenile and thus unconstitutional | State: Felony murder is a homicide offense; Miller allows life for juveniles after individualized consideration, so no categorical bar applies | Court: Declined to resolve de facto life theory because felony murder is a homicide offense; Miller permits life sentences for juvenile homicide offenders |
| Whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate to offense given age and reform | Mantich: His youth, conduct, and postoffense rehabilitation make the sentence disproportionate | State: Facts (carjacking, abduction, taunting, shooting) and admissions support severe sentence; Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme, grossly disproportionate sentences | Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate on these facts; appellant’s admissions and conduct support sentence |
| Whether the court failed to conscientiously consider juvenile status and mitigating youth factors | Mantich: Sentencing court did not give proper weight/consideration to his youth | State: Court explicitly considered age as a mitigating factor and gave benefit by resentencing below life | Court: Record shows the district court considered age and mitigation; claim is without merit |
| Whether due process requires judicially-created procedural safeguards (mitigation hearing, presumption against life, specific factfinding) | Mantich: Court should require mitigation hearing, presumption against life/de facto life, and articulated factfinding to avoid arbitrary sentences | State: Existing statutory scheme (§ 28-105.02) and Miller provide adequate procedure; no such additional safeguards mandated | Court: Declined to create extra safeguards; existing procedures and Miller are sufficient; no requirement for presumption or specific factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile homicide offenders must receive individualized sentencing consideration)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenses is unconstitutional; juveniles must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (postconviction relief vacating Mantich’s original life sentence under Miller)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality; forbids only grossly disproportionate sentences)