State v. Morton, 310 Neb. 355

Background

Morton, age 16 at the time, was originally charged with second-degree murder, two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony, and unlawful discharge of a firearm; his motion to transfer to juvenile court was denied.
He pleaded no contest under a plea agreement to manslaughter (Class IIA) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Class II); the State supplied a factual basis in which Morton admitted firing one shot toward a house/porch during a group confrontation that resulted in the death of Edgar Union, Jr.
The district court accepted the pleas, ordered a PSR, and sentenced Morton to 15–20 years for manslaughter and 30–40 years for the firearm-possession conviction, to be served consecutively (with credit for time served).
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the manslaughter sentence but reduced the firearm-possession sentence to 10–15 years, reasoning the sentence was an extreme outlier and that the facts better fit a lesser predicate offense (unlawful discharge).
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in reducing the firearm-possession sentence and ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the district court’s aggregate sentencing decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Morton)	Held
Whether the 30–40 year sentence for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony was excessive	Sentence was within statutory limits, court properly weighed factors (age, PSR, plea benefit, public protection) and did not abuse discretion	Sentence was disproportionate (double manslaughter sentence), extreme outlier; Morton’s youth, remorse, lack of intent to kill and rehabilitative progress favored probation or shorter term	Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court: sentence not an abuse of discretion; aggregate sentence appropriate
Whether the Court of Appeals could recharacterize the underlying predicate offense (arguing facts best fit unlawful discharge) to justify reducing the sentence	Prosecutorial charging decisions are discretionary; as long as factual basis supports crimes of conviction, appellate court should not substitute a different preferred predicate crime to upset a sentence	The Court of Appeals argued the facts better supported a different predicate offense and used that in its excessiveness analysis	Supreme Court: prosecutor’s charging discretion and the crimes actually convicted control; recharacterizing the predicate crime was improper
Sufficiency of the evidence to support the firearm-possession conviction	Admitted statements, witness identifications, and circumstantial facts provided a sufficient factual basis for possession and for the manslaughter conviction	No witness saw Morton fire; argued insufficient proof of possession during commission	Appellate courts found no merit to insufficiency claim; record provided competent evidence supporting convictions
Whether the sentencing court abused discretion by denying probation and by considering plea-bargain concessions	Court reasonably considered age, PSR, character references, and significant plea benefit (reduced exposure from multiple severe charges); imprisonment was necessary to protect public and reflect seriousness	Morton urged probation or minimal incarceration based on youth, rehabilitation while detained, no prior record, and traumatic background	Supreme Court: sentencing court did not abuse discretion; consideration of plea benefit and the decision to impose confinement were permissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Greer, 309 Neb. 667 (2021) (standard: sentences within statutory limits reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Stabler, 305 Neb. 415 (2020) (appellate review must assess whether sentencing court considered relevant factors and legal principles)
State v. Decker, 261 Neb. 382 (2001) (sentences within statutory limits can still be excessive in rare cases)
State v. Riley, 242 Neb. 887 (1993) (comparative analysis not mandatory; useful only to validate a gross disproportionality judgment)
State v. Jones, 293 Neb. 452 (2016) (trier of fact may infer intent from natural and probable consequences of voluntary acts)
State v. Moore, 276 Neb. 1 (2008) (affirming serious sentences where firing without precise aim caused grave injury)
State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 (2006) (upholding severe sentences for senseless gun violence despite defendant’s youth)
State v. Philipps, 242 Neb. 894 (1993) (scope of appellate review of sentencing and reduction authority)