State v. Phillips
297 Neb. 469
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Christian E. Phillips, a required SORA registrant based on a prior third-degree sexual assault conviction, failed to report a correct Nebraska address and was charged with 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 provisions enacted by 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 605.
- The district court’s postrelease supervision order contained numerous conditions (e.g., reporting, residence and travel restrictions, searches, electronic device and internet restrictions, drug/alcohol testing, treatment, polygraph testing, fees, and ability for 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 articulate specific objections on the record.
- Phillips appealed, claiming (1) his 12‑month imprisonment was excessive and (2) several 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: it held the prison term was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, and Phillips waived preserved challenge to the conditions because he was given notice and failed to object sufficiently at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Phillips' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 12 months' imprisonment was excessive | Sentence is excessive given limited criminal history | Sentence is within statutory range and justified by failure to comply with SORA and prior sexual assault conviction | Affirmed — within statutory limits; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether postrelease supervision conditions were unconstitutional | Various conditions violate First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and are unrelated to rehabilitation | Conditions are authorized by statute and court rules; defendant had notice and opportunity to challenge | Affirmed — challenges waived for failure to articulate objections at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (sentencing abuse-of-discretion framework)
- State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (postrelease supervision statutory context)
- State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (waiver principles in sentencing challenges)
- State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (sentencing review principles)