State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Phillips, a SORA registrant based on a 2013 conviction for third-degree sexual assault of a child, failed to timely register his actual residential address.
He pled no contest to a Class IIIA felony charge for failing to register and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision.
The district court imposed numerous postrelease supervision conditions (e.g., restrictions on internet and electronics use, searches, drug/alcohol testing, residence/employment reporting, treatment, polygraphs, fees).
The sentencing order stated the court could later modify or eliminate conditions on motion of the supervising officer or defendant.
On appeal, Phillips argued (1) his 12-month imprisonment was excessive and (2) several supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Ex Post Facto, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, and not reasonably related to rehabilitation).
The Supreme Court considered whether Phillips waived his challenges to the conditions by failing to specify objections at sentencing and whether the sentence or conditions were an abuse of discretion or unconstitutional.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of imprisonment	1 year term was excessive given limited criminal history	Sentence within statutory limits and justified by prior sexual-assault conviction and failure to register	Affirmed — 12 months within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion
Validity of postrelease supervision imposition	Imposition/conditions challenged as unconstitutional	Postrelease supervision authorized by statute and rules; defendant had notice and opportunity to object	Court held imposition proper; conditions challenged waived for insufficient contemporaneous objections
Constitutional challenges to specific conditions (e.g., internet, searches, polygraph, disclosure requirements)	Conditions violate First, Fourth, Ex Post Facto, and Due Process protections and are not rehabilitative	Conditions fall within statutory/rule-authorized supervisory conditions and may be modified later	Court did not reach merits because Phillips waived challenges by failing to identify specific objections at sentencing
Waiver of appellate review of conditions	Objections preserved by refusing to sign attestation and by general protest	Defendant was given notice and chance to object but did not specify particular constitutional claims at sentencing	Held waiver — general refusal insufficient; defendant had opportunity but failed to articulate specific objections

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334, 837 N.W.2d 496 (appellate review of excessive sentence standards)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (sentencing factor guidance)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (postrelease supervision and related authority)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (waiver and preservation principles)