State v. Phillips, 900 N.W.2d 522

Christian E. Phillips was convicted in 2013 of third-degree sexual assault of a child and became a 25-year SORA registrant.
After release, Phillips reported a fictitious Sarpy County address and later lived elsewhere without updating his registration; he was charged with failing to register under SORA (Class IIIA felony).
Phillips pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision with numerous conditions (e.g., search consent, electronic device restrictions, drug testing, treatment, fees, internet prohibitions, polygraph).
The sentencing order allowed the court or supervising officer to modify, add, or eliminate supervision conditions.
On appeal Phillips argued (1) the 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 considered whether Phillips waived challenges to the conditions and reviewed the sentence and conditions for abuse of discretion and constitutional validity.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether 12-month imprisonment was excessive	Sentence excessive given limited criminal record	Sentence within statutory limits and justified by failure to comply with SORA and prior sexual-assault conviction	Not excessive; sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion
Whether postrelease supervision conditions are unconstitutional	Many conditions violate First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Due Process, Ex Post Facto, and are not reasonably related to rehabilitation	Conditions authorized by statute, properly imposed; Phillips waived specific challenges by failing to timely specify objections at sentencing	Conditions reviewed; court found Phillips waived specific objections because he was informed of conditions and did not preserve particular challenges; judgment affirmed

State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (sentencing review standards)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (postrelease supervision and sentencing factors)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (sentencing and abuse-of-discretion principles)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (procedural preservation of sentencing issues)