State v. Starks, 955 N.W.2d 313

Gary L. Starks pled guilty (pursuant to a plea agreement) to one Class IIA shoplifting felony and three Class IV felonies (two shoplifting Class IVs and one probation-violation Class IV); other charges were dismissed.
PSI rated Starks a very high risk to reoffend; record showed long criminal history, substance abuse, and noncooperation with probation; Starks urged mitigation based on childhood abuse, addiction, remorse, and need for treatment.
At sentencing the court imposed: 8 to 16 years for the Class IIA felony and determinate 2-year sentences for each Class IV felony, ordered to run consecutively (190 days credit for time served).
Starks appealed, arguing the total sentence was excessive; the State defended the sentences but suggested the Class IV sentences may violate statutory indeterminacy rules and asked the court to notice plain error.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Class IIA sentence as not an abuse of discretion but held the three Class IV sentences were plain error under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(4) because they were imposed determinately while required to be indeterminate when imposed consecutively with a Class IIA sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Starks' sentences were excessive / an abuse of discretion	Starks: court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors and tailored sentence to crime rather than offender	State: sentence within statutory limits and supported by PSI and risk of reoffense	Court: affirmed Class IIA sentence — not an abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered relevant factors and individualized evidence
Whether Class IV sentences were lawful as determinate terms	Starks: did not challenge determinate form on appeal (primary claim was excessiveness)	State: although it did not cross-appeal, it suggested plain error because § 29-2204.02(4) requires indeterminate sentences for Class IV felonies imposed consecutively with Class IIA sentences	Court: vacated the three Class IV determinate sentences as plain error and remanded for resentencing with indeterminate Class IV terms

State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968, 951 N.W.2d 764 (2020) (standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376, 940 N.W.2d 552 (2020) (failure to impose indeterminate sentence when required is plain error)
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (statutory indeterminacy principles for felony sentencing)
State v. Kantaras, 294 Neb. 960, 885 N.W.2d 558 (2016) (review of whether a sentence is authorized by statute is de novo)
State v. Thompson, 301 Neb. 472, 919 N.W.2d 122 (2018) (distinction between determinate and indeterminate sentences)
State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581, 941 N.W.2d 474 (2020) (appellate court will not reweigh sentencing factors on appeal)