State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483

In 1974 Patrick R. Russell was convicted of first-degree murder for strangling an 8‑year‑old when he was 17 and sentenced to life imprisonment; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Following Miller v. Alabama and Nebraska’s implementing statute (§ 28‑105.02), Russell sought postconviction relief and a new sentencing hearing; the district court granted relief and held a mitigation/resentencing proceeding.
The mitigation evidence included neurodevelopmental testimony about adolescent brain immaturity, a psychologist’s assessment (low risk of future violence but personality disorder), Russell’s prison programming and misconduct record, past psychiatric hospitalizations and juvenile sexual offenses, and a presentence report assessing high reoffense risk and limited insight.
At resentencing the court expressly considered the statutory and Miller factors (age at offense, impetuosity, family/community environment, mental health evaluation, and traditional sentencing factors) and reviewed the PSR and mitigation evidence.
The district court resentenced Russell to an aggregate term of 110 to 126 years (parole eligibility after ~55 years, at about age 72), and Russell appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive/de facto life.

Issue	Russell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the 110–126 year term is excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence is excessive and functionally a life sentence; court focused on crime over offender and did not adequately account for youth-related mitigation	Court considered Miller and statutory mitigating factors and applied sentencing factors appropriately	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed
Whether lengthy term is a de facto life sentence barred by juvenile‑sentencing principles	Parole eligibility at ~72 is too remote to be "meaningful"	Term permits a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release and complies with precedent	Not a de facto life sentence in this case; parole eligibility satisfies Graham/Miller principles

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencers must consider youth‑related mitigating factors)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (categorical bar on juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; requiring meaningful opportunity for release)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles are constitutionally different for sentencing purposes)
State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957 (Neb. 2017) (Nebraska court analysis that lengthy term‑of‑years with parole eligibility in late sixties/early seventies can satisfy Graham’s meaningful‑opportunity requirement)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (Neb. 2014) (applying Miller‑related principles to Nebraska resentencings)