State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Background

Christian E. Phillips was previously convicted (Sept. 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, Phillips provided a fictitious Sarpy County address and later lived at a different address without notifying the sheriff’s office, leading to a charge for failing to register under SORA (Class IIIA felony).
Phillips pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision under the 2015 determinate sentencing/postrelease supervision scheme.
The court’s postrelease supervision order imposed numerous conditions (e.g., restrictions on internet and electronic devices, searches, drug/alcohol testing, residency and travel restrictions, treatment requirements, fees, and polygraph examinations) and reserved the court’s power to modify conditions.
On appeal Phillips argued (1) his 12-month imprisonment was excessive and (2) various postrelease supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Ex Post Facto, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, and not reasonably related to rehabilitation).
The district court recorded the conditions at sentencing; Phillips refused to attest to agreement but acknowledged receipt and did not articulate specific objections at the hearing; the State argued waiver of appellate challenge to the conditions.

Issues

Issue	Phillips' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was the 12-month imprisonment excessive?	Sentence is excessive given limited criminal history.	Sentence is within statutory range and appropriate given prior sexual-assault conviction and SORA violation.	Affirmed — within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion.
Were postrelease supervision conditions unconstitutional (various doctrines)?	Conditions violate First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and are not reasonably related to rehabilitation.	Conditions were properly imposed under postrelease supervision statutes and rules; defendant waived many objections by not articulating them at sentencing.	Affirmed — conditions permitted; Phillips waived sufficient challenge by failing to specify objections at sentencing.
Was postrelease supervision properly imposed under 2015 statutes and rules?	(Implicit) New statutory scheme may limit or change conditions.	Statutes (§ 28-105, § 29-2204.02) and Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1904 authorize determinate sentence plus postrelease supervision and conditions.	Affirmed — imposition proper under statutes and court rule.
Did Phillips receive adequate notice and opportunity to challenge conditions (waiver issue)?	He refused to sign agreement and later objected on appeal.	He acknowledged receipt at sentencing and did not specify objections, so appellate challenge is waived.	Affirmed — court finds Phillips was adequately informed and waived appellate challenge by failing to articulate specific objections at sentencing.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (appellate review of alleged excessive sentence requires review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (sentencing factors and considerations)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (waiver principles related to sentencing objections)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (discussion of sentencing review standards)