State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Christian E. Phillips, required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) as a 25‑year registrant based on a prior third‑degree sexual assault conviction, failed to properly register his address.
He pled no contest to a Class IIIA felony for failing to register and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and 12 months postrelease supervision under amendments enacted by 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 605.
The district court’s postrelease supervision order contained numerous conditions (e.g., restrictions on internet/electronic device use, searches, random drug/alcohol testing, residency and employment requirements, polygraph testing, fees, and treatment participation). The order allowed the court or supervising officer to modify conditions.
At sentencing Phillips refused to sign an attestation agreeing to the conditions but acknowledged receipt and did not specify particular objections on the record.
Phillips appealed, challenging the length of his sentence as excessive and arguing several postrelease supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Ex Post Facto, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, and not reasonably related to rehabilitation).

Issue	Phillips’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether 12 months imprisonment was excessive	1 year is excessive given limited criminal history	Sentence within statutory range and justified by SORA violation and prior sexual‑assault conviction	Court affirmed: within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Validity of postrelease supervision term and imposition	Challenges to conditions as unconstitutional and unrelated to rehabilitation	Postrelease supervision is authorized by statute; district court followed required procedure	Court affirmed supervision term and conditions generally valid
Whether Phillips waived challenges to supervision conditions	Implied waiver because he did not preserve specific objections at sentencing	Conditions were disclosed at sentencing; opportunity to object existed	Court held Phillips waived his objections by failing to specify them on the record
Specific constitutional objections to conditions (e.g., internet/searches, polygraph, monitoring)	Conditions violate First, Fourth, Ex Post Facto, Due Process	Conditions fall within statutory authority and may be tailored/modified by court or officer	Court did not reach detailed constitutional invalidation—found waiver and upheld order as imposed

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (case discussing sentencing standard and appellate review of excessive sentence)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (discussing factors for sentencing consideration)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (cited regarding preservation and related procedural issues)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (cited for sentencing principles)