State v. Phillips
297 Neb. 469
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Phillips was convicted in 2013 of third-degree sexual assault of a child and was required to register under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) as a 25-year registrant.
- After release he provided a fictitious Sarpy County address and later lived elsewhere without reporting the change; he was charged with failing to register under SORA.
- Phillips pled no contest to the Class IIIA felony of failing to register, and the district court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision.
- The postrelease supervision order contained numerous conditions (e.g., residence reporting, searches, drug/alcohol testing, internet restrictions, electronic-device searches, treatment, polygraph, fees), and allowed the court to modify conditions on motion.
- Phillips appealed, arguing (1) his 12-month imprisonment was excessive and (2) multiple supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and not reasonably related to rehabilitation).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: the imprisonment term was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, and Phillips waived preserved challenges to the supervision conditions by failing to timely specify objections at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Phillips) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive imprisonment | 12 months is excessive given limited criminal history | Sentence is within statutory range and appropriate given sexual-assault conviction and SORA violation | Court held sentence not excessive; within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
| Constitutionality of postrelease conditions / waiver | Many conditions violate First, Fourth, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and are not reasonably related to rehabilitation | Conditions proper under postrelease supervision statute; Phillips was given notice and opportunity to object but failed to preserve issues | Court held Phillips waived adequate challenge by not specifying objections at sentencing; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334, 837 N.W.2d 496 (2013) (sentencing review: appellate standard for excessive sentence)
- State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (2015) (postrelease supervision authority and conditions)
- State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006) (preservation and waiver principles)
- State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (sentencing factors and appellate review)