State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469

Phillips was previously convicted of third-degree sexual assault of a child and was required to register under Nebraska's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) as a 25-year registrant.
After release, Phillips provided a fictitious address to authorities and later resided at a different address without reporting it, leading to a charge for 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.
The district court imposed extensive postrelease supervision conditions, including limits on internet and electronic-device use, consent to searches of devices and premises, mandatory drug testing and treatment, polygraphs, and other monitoring and reporting requirements.
Phillips appealed, arguing (1) his 12-month imprisonment was excessive and (2) various postrelease supervision conditions were unconstitutional (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, due process, ex post facto) or unrelated to rehabilitation.
The district court record showed Phillips acknowledged receipt of the conditions at sentencing but did not specifically articulate objections; the court held he waived those objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessiveness of imprisonment	Phillips: 12 months is excessive given limited criminal history	State: sentence within statutory range and justified by SORA violation and prior sexual-assault conviction	Affirmed — 12 months within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Validity of postrelease supervision generally	Phillips: some conditions exceed statutory or constitutional bounds	State: postrelease supervision and conditions authorized by statute and rules	Court: imposition of postrelease supervision proper under statute
Constitutionality of specific conditions (searches, device/internet restrictions, disclosure of passwords, polygraphs, etc.)	Phillips: conditions violate First, Fourth, Due Process, and Ex Post Facto protections and are not reasonably related to rehabilitation	State: conditions are authorized and reasonable under supervision authority	Court: did not resolve merits because Phillips waived specific constitutional challenges by failing to timely and specifically object; therefore conditions stand
Waiver of objection to conditions	Phillips: contends conditions are unconstitutional despite acknowledging receipt	State: Phillips waived by failing to specify objections at sentencing	Held: Phillips was adequately informed and had opportunity to object; his failure to identify issues at hearing constituted waiver

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334, 837 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 2013) (standard for reviewing alleged excessive sentences)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2015) (sentencing factors and considerations)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 2006) (waiver principles in sentencing contexts)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (Neb. 2017) (recent sentencing authority referenced)