State v. Roth, 977 N.W.2d 221

Defendant Derek J. Roth pled no contest to two Class III felonies (possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person) and one Class I misdemeanor (third-degree domestic assault) and was sentenced to 30 months’ intensive supervised probation.
While on probation Roth accrued multiple administrative and custodial sanctions and was arrested on new charges (including allegations involving the same victim); the State moved to revoke probation and the court found a violation.
At resentencing the court revoked probation and imposed 3 years’ imprisonment on each Class III count and 1 year on the misdemeanor; the sentences were concurrent with each other but ordered consecutive to a Lancaster County misdemeanor sentence; the court expressly declined to impose post-release supervision (PRS).
Roth appealed, arguing the total imprisonment was excessive; the State cross-asserted that the court plainly erred by failing to impose mandatory PRS under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2204.02 and 28-105.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the imprisonment terms were not excessive (no abuse of discretion) but found plain error in omitting statutory PRS: the court vacated and remanded with directions to impose 9 months of PRS and to set its terms and concurrency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 3-year imprisonment after probation revocation was excessive	Roth: sentence disproportionately harsh; court ignored mitigating factors (time on probation, completion of classes, reduced convictions in related case)	State: sentence within statutory limits and justified by repeated probation violations, reoffending against same victim, and high risk to community	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence not excessive
Whether the court plainly erred by failing to impose post-release supervision (PRS)	State: §§ 29-2204.02 and 28-105 mandate PRS (minimum 9 months for Class III when imprisonment is imposed) unless specified exceptions apply	Roth/court below: PRS unnecessary; sentencing judge declined PRS as not beneficial and a waste of resources (defense did not preserve error)	Court: Plain error; statutory PRS required here (no exception applies); vacated and remanded to impose 9 months PRS and specify terms and concurrency

State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769, 969 N.W.2d 399 (articulates appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Starks, 308 Neb. 527, 955 N.W.2d 313 (construed § 29-2204.02(4) and held determinate sentences plain error where indeterminacy required)
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (trial court must state concurrency/consecutiveness for PRS and may direct PRS to run concurrent or consecutive)
State v. Lillard, 27 Neb. App. 824, 937 N.W.2d 1 (Court of Appeals: § 29-2204.02 applies to preexisting sentences still being served)
State v. Kipple, 310 Neb. 654, 968 N.W.2d 613 (explains plain error standard)
State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609, 967 N.W.2d 435 (statutory interpretation principles; in pari materia construction)