State v. Phillips, 924 N.W.2d 699

Phillips received a split sentence: 3 years' imprisonment and 18 months of post-release supervision (PRS), scheduled Sept 4, 2017–Mar 4, 2019 (546 days).
He absconded from PRS beginning Sept 28, 2017; arrested Feb 5, 2018; revoked May 14, 2018.
District court counted 24 days served before absconsion and 98 days served after arrest (total 122 days served), treated the 127 days absconded as not served, calculated 424 days remaining PRS on revocation, and imposed 365 days in jail with 0 days’ credit.
Phillips appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly extended his remaining PRS by including absconsion time, (2) he was entitled to 98 days’ credit for time served pre-revocation, and (3) the sentence was excessive.
The Supreme Court addressed how to compute the “remaining period of post‑release supervision” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2268(2), whether absconsion tolls PRS, and whether pre‑revocation jail time must be credited against a revocation sentence.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court may exclude absconsion days when calculating the “remaining period of PRS” under § 29‑2268(2)	The court could only measure remaining PRS from revocation date to original PRS end (295 days); including absconsion time unlawfully extended PRS	PRS days are tolled during absconsion; § 29‑2263(5) allows adding absconsion time to the term, so remaining PRS may include unserved absconsion days	Court may exclude absconsion days from "served" time; absconsion can be disregarded as time served when computing remaining PRS; trial court did not err in its calculation
Whether Phillips was entitled to credit for 98 days spent in jail pending revocation	Phillips: § 47‑503 requires credit for time spent in jail on the charge for which the jail term is imposed	State: those 98 days are part of the PRS administration (not jail time for the original charge) and were counted as PRS served when computing remaining PRS	No separate jail‑credit under § 47‑503; the 98 days were counted as PRS served and thus not additionally credited against the revocation term
Whether the 365‑day revocation sentence was an abuse of discretion/excessive	Phillips: sentence too long given plea and remorse	State: sentence within statutory limit (up to remaining PRS) and justified by public safety/record	No abuse of discretion; 365 days is within statutory range and supported by record

State v. Kennedy, 299 Neb. 362 (recognizing distinction between probation and post‑release supervision remedies under § 29‑2268)
State v. Dill, 300 Neb. 344 (discussing post‑release supervision as a form of probation)
Geddes v. York County, 273 Neb. 271 (calendar‑month definition and month‑to‑day conversion rule)
United States v. Island, 916 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.) (federal courts toll supervised‑release during absconsion; supports tolling principle)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228 (context on post‑release supervision statutory scheme)