State v. Staudenmaier, A-20-873

Victim Antonio Gutierrez was working on a fence when Justin Staudenmaier drove up, pointed a shotgun at him, fired once into the victim’s truck wheel well, and verbally threatened him. Gutierrez fled and called 911.
Sheriff inspected the truck and observed a fresh shotgun-type hole and powder residue; Staudenmaier admitted pointing a firearm and said he believed Gutierrez was trespassing.
Staudenmaier was charged with one count of terroristic threats (Class IIIA felony), convicted after a 1-day bench trial, and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment plus 9 months postrelease supervision.
After sentencing Staudenmaier moved for a "new sentencing," claiming irregularity, newly disclosed medical evidence (end‑stage renal disease requiring dialysis, diabetes), and inadequate consideration of his health; the district court denied the motion as not presenting newly discovered evidence and as an unauthorized procedure.
On appeal Staudenmaier argued the denial of his motion for new sentencing was error and that his sentence was excessive; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by denying motion for new sentencing	Staudenmaier: newly disclosed medical evidence and irregularity justified vacating or redoing sentencing	State: sentence was validly imposed; motion for new sentencing is not an authorized postconviction procedure and evidence was not newly discovered	Court: No error; sentence valid and motion unauthorized/meritless; denial affirmed
Whether the sentence was excessive	Staudenmaier: court failed to adequately consider age, mentality, education, background, law‑abiding conduct, and serious health issues	State: sentence (1 year + 9 months PRS) is within statutory limits and court considered Blaha factors and PSR	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors and violence warranted incarceration

State v. Blaha, 303 Neb. 415, 929 N.W.2d 494 (2019) (standards and factors for reviewing sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618, 618 N.W.2d 699 (2000) (a validly pronounced sentence takes effect when pronounced and generally cannot be modified thereafter)
State v. Lotter, 255 Neb. 456, 586 N.W.2d 591 (1998) (sentence pronouncement rules and limits on trial court’s postpronouncement modification)
State v. Carlson, 227 Neb. 503, 418 N.W.2d 561 (1988) (authority on finality of sentences)
State v. Clark, 17 Neb. App. 361, 762 N.W.2d 64 (2009) (supporting precedent on sentencing finality)
State v. Wilcox, 239 Neb. 882, 479 N.W.2d 134 (1992) (definition of an invalid sentence as one beyond statutory authority)
State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) (motions not authorized by Nebraska criminal procedure are nullities)