State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Christian E. Phillips, a SORA registrant from a prior conviction for third-degree sexual assault of a child, failed to timely register his actual address and was charged with a Class IIIA felony for failure to register.
Phillips pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and 12 months of postrelease supervision under the 2015 postrelease supervision statutory scheme.
The district court imposed numerous, detailed conditions on postrelease supervision (e.g., residence reporting, searches, drug testing, internet restrictions, electronic-device searches, prohibition on pornography, polygraph, program fees), with a reservation allowing the court or supervising officer to modify conditions.
At sentencing Phillips refused to sign an attestation agreeing to the conditions but signed an acknowledgment of receipt and did not articulate specific objections on the record.
On appeal Phillips claimed (1) the 12-month imprisonment was excessive and (2) multiple postrelease 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 prison term was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, and Phillips waived most challenges to supervision conditions by failing to adequately object at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 12-month imprisonment was excessive	State: sentence within statutory range and justified by failure to comply with SORA given prior sexual assault conviction	Phillips: 12 months excessive given limited criminal history	Court: sentence within statutory limits, not an abuse of discretion; affirmed
Whether supervision conditions were unconstitutional / improperly imposed	State: court properly imposed conditions authorized by statute and rules; Phillips had notice and opportunity to object	Phillips: multiple conditions violate First, Fourth, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and are unrelated to rehabilitation	Court: Phillips waived most challenges by not making specific objections at sentencing; conditions were authorized and appeal fails

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334, 837 N.W.2d 496 (2013) (standards for reviewing alleged excessive sentences)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (2015) (sentencing factors and review principles)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006) (procedural considerations for preserving sentencing objections)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (recent sentencing authority cited on standards)