State v. Ramirez, 990 N.W.2d 550

In November 2008, 17‑year‑old Eric A. Ramirez participated in three related shootings in Omaha that killed two people and injured a third; he was arrested with two co‑defendants.
In 2010 a jury convicted Ramirez of two counts of first‑degree murder and multiple related felonies; the trial court imposed mandatory life sentences for the murders and various terms for the other counts.
On direct appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama and a Nebraska statute requiring certain consecutive weapon sentences.
At the 2022 resentencing the court considered the PSR, letters from victims’ families, a psychologist’s evaluation addressing youth‑related mitigating factors under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02, Ramirez’s prison programming and disciplinary history, and arguments from counsel.
The district court imposed 40–60 years for each murder and consecutive terms on multiple counts for an aggregate term of 128–180 years (with credit for time served); Ramirez appealed, arguing the aggregate sentence was excessive and a prohibited “de facto life” sentence violating due process and the Eighth Amendment.

Issue	Ramirez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the aggregate 128–180 year term is excessive / abuse of discretion	Sentence is excessive; court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating youth factors, remorse, family, and should match codefendant’s term	Court considered the required factors, held individualized sentencing based on relative culpability and crime severity; sentence within statutory limits	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered § 28‑105.02 factors and made individualized determination
Whether the term constitutes a prohibited “de facto life” sentence (due process / Eighth Amendment)	Long term‑of‑years effectively amounts to life without parole and thus violates Miller/Graham	Sentence permits parole eligibility and complies with Miller and Nebraska law; recent Supreme Court precedent supports discretion	Affirmed — not a de facto life sentence; parole eligibility and Jones v. Mississippi reasoning squarely support the result

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide unconstitutional)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021) (sentencing need not include explicit finding of permanent incorrigibility to impose a term‑of‑years)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (2014) (prior Nebraska appeal: convictions affirmed, sentences vacated and remanded post‑Miller)
State v. Castaneda, 295 Neb. 547 (2017) (affirming long aggregate term on resentencing of a codefendant)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (no requirement for specific factfinding at juvenile sentencing)
State v. Cardeilhac, 293 Neb. 200 (2016) (rejecting use of another jurisdiction’s de facto‑life analysis)
State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693 (2019) (Eighth Amendment sentencing analysis applied to individual sentences)