State v. McTizic, 988 N.W.2d 197

James H. McTizic pleaded no contest to one count of first‑degree sexual assault and three counts of attempted first‑degree sexual assault after an amended information and a plea agreement (one original charge was dismissed).
The alleged victims were multiple relatives; the incidents occurred across years (1991–2018) and involved minors; many allegations were decades old.
A presentence investigation and an independent psychological evaluation by Dr. Kirk Newring documented severe criminal history, substance‑abuse history, physical/mental health issues, and possible mild cognitive impairment warranting further neuropsychological testing.
Defense counsel moved to continue sentencing so NDCS could conduct a court‑ordered up to 90‑day evaluation under §§ 29‑2204 / 29‑2204.03 to inform sentencing and placement; the State opposed.
The court denied the continuance as unnecessary (but ordered a postsentence NDCS evaluation for placement), then sentenced McTizic to 40–50 years for the first‑degree conviction and 19–20 years on each attempted count, all concurrent. McTizic appealed arguing the denial of the continuance and that the sentences were excessive. The court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a continuance to order a 90‑day NDCS evaluation before sentencing	State: court had sufficient information from the presentence report and Dr. Newring; further delay unnecessary	McTizic: NDCS neuropsych evaluation was needed to inform sentencing and placement and to assess cognitive decline	Court: No abuse of discretion; presentence report and psychological evaluation provided adequate information; court ordered postsentence NDCS evaluation for placement
Whether the sentences were excessive	State: sentences are within statutory limits and justified by the gravity of the offenses and lengthy criminal history	McTizic: court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors (age, health, substance abuse, caregiver role, cognitive issues)	Court: Sentences are within statutory ranges; judge expressly considered relevant mitigating and aggravating factors; no abuse of discretion

State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289, 940 N.W.2d 529 (2020) (appellate review will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Morton, 310 Neb. 355, 966 N.W.2d 57 (2021) (definition and standard for judicial abuse of discretion)
State v. Thieszen, 300 Neb. 112, 912 N.W.2d 696 (2018) (sentencing court has broad discretion as to sources and types of evidence used at sentencing)
State v. Starks, 308 Neb. 527, 955 N.W.2d 313 (2021) (relevant sentencing factors and appellate review framework)
State v. Wilkinson, 293 Neb. 876, 881 N.W.2d 850 (2016) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing within statutory limits)