State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Christian E. Phillips, a 25‑year SORA registrant based on a 2013 conviction for third‑degree sexual assault of a child, failed to timely register his actual residence.
Phillips pled no contest to failure to register (a Class IIIA felony) pursuant to a plea agreement.
The district court sentenced Phillips to 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision and imposed numerous supervisory conditions (e.g., residence reporting, searches, drug/alcohol testing, internet/computer restrictions, polygraphs, treatment, fees).
The sentencing order permitted modification of conditions upon motion by the supervising officer or defendant or by the court.
Phillips appealed, arguing his prison term was excessive and various postrelease supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and not reasonably related to rehabilitation).
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion and whether Phillips waived his challenges to the supervision conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Phillips)	Held
Whether 12‑month imprisonment was excessive	Sentence within statutory range and justified by SORA violation and criminal history	1 year excessive given limited criminal record	Affirmed — within statutory limits; not an abuse of discretion
Whether imposition of 12 months’ postrelease supervision was authorized	Statutes authorize determinate sentence with postrelease supervision up to statutory maximum	Contested conditions unconstitutional (various constitutional claims)	Imposition of supervision authorized and proper
Whether Phillips waived challenges to supervision conditions	Court: defendant was informed and given opportunity to object at sentencing; failure to specify objections waived claims	Phillips refused to sign attestation agreeing to conditions but only acknowledged receipt and did not articulate specific objections	Waived — objections insufficiently preserved
Whether specific conditions violated constitutional rights	State: conditions fall within supervisory authority and may be modified later	Phillips: challenged conditions as violating First, Fourth, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and not related to rehab	Court did not reach merits because challenges were waived; overall sentence and conditions affirmed

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (appellate standard for reviewing claims of excessive sentence)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (procedures and factors for sentencing and supervision)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (waiver principles in sentencing context)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (discussion of sentencing factors and abuse of discretion)