State v. Roth, 311 Neb. 1007

Derek J. Roth pleaded no contest to two counts of possession of a deadly weapon (not a firearm) by a prohibited person (Class III felonies) and one count of third-degree domestic assault (Class I misdemeanor).
He was sentenced to 30 months of intensive supervised probation (concurrent) but repeatedly violated probation, including new arrests for offenses against the same victim in Lancaster County.
After admission of a probation violation, the district court revoked probation and resentenced Roth to 3 years’ imprisonment on each Class III count and 1 year on the misdemeanor, with the terms concurrent to each other but consecutive to Lancaster County sentences.
The district court expressly declined to impose post-release supervision (PRS), stating it would be a waste of state resources.
On direct appeal after revocation, Roth argued the 3-year total imprisonment was excessive; the State argued the court plainly erred by failing to impose mandatory PRS for the Class III convictions.
The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion on excessiveness but held the court committed plain error by omitting the statutorily required minimum 9 months of PRS for the Class III felonies and remanded for modification.

Issue	State's Argument	Roth's Argument	Held
Whether the 3-year imprisonment (after probation revocation) was excessive	Sentence within statutory limits and justified by repeated violations, reoffending, and high risk to reoffend	Sentence disproportionate; court ignored mitigating factors (time on probation, completion of classes, felony convictions not entered in Lancaster County)	No abuse of discretion; sentence not excessive given circumstances
Whether the trial court erred in failing to impose post-release supervision (PRS)	Failure to impose mandatory PRS for Class III felonies is plain error under §§ 29-2204.02 and 28-105	Court exercised discretion to deny PRS as not beneficial and resource‑wasteful	Plain error; statutory mandates required minimum 9 months PRS for Class III felonies; sentences vacated and remanded to impose PRS and specify concurrency

State v. Starks, 308 Neb. 527, 955 N.W.2d 313 (2021) (interpreting § 29-2204.02(4) and holding determinate sentences plain error when indeterminacy required)
State v. Lillard, 27 Neb. App. 824, 937 N.W.2d 1 (2019) (held § 29-2204.02 applies to sentences imposed while other sentences are in progress)
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (trial court’s discretion to order concurrent or consecutive terms applies equally to imprisonment and PRS)
State v. Kipple, 310 Neb. 654, 968 N.W.2d 613 (2022) (plain error review principles in criminal appeals)
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769, 969 N.W.2d 399 (2022) (standards for appellate review of sentences alleged to be excessive)
State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609, 967 N.W.2d 435 (2021) (statutory interpretation principles; in pari materia construction)