State v. Steele, 300 Neb. 617

On April 18, 2016, two armed intruders entered a Lincoln residence during an attempted theft of marijuana; one victim (Christopher Coleman) was shot and killed and another (Jerry Griffis) was shot multiple times and is now partially paralyzed. Three children were present; a dog was also shot and killed.
Evidence tied Markel D. Steele (who was 17 at the time) to the scene: eyewitness ID from Griffis and Facebook communications planning robberies, matching shoeprints to Steele’s Nike Air Force sneakers, casings from the same .45-caliber firearm, and jailhouse admissions to confidential informants.
Steele pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement: second degree murder and first degree assault; other counts were dismissed.
At sentencing the district court considered juvenile-sentencing principles (citing Miller and Graham), statutory mitigating factors, the violent and depraved nature of the offenses, Steele’s background and reported conduct, and public safety concerns.
The court imposed consecutive terms: 60 years to life for second degree murder and 40–50 years for first degree assault (parole eligibility in 50 years, at about age 67). Steele appealed, arguing the sentences were (1) a de facto life sentence impermissible under Miller and (2) excessive/abusive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Steele)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Steele’s term-of-years sentence is an unconstitutional "de facto life" sentence under Miller	Miller requires a finding of the juvenile being "irreparably corrupt" before imposing a de facto life sentence; no such finding was made	Nebraska precedent permits term-of-years sentences if they afford a "meaningful and realistic opportunity" for release; Steele’s parole eligibility at 67 is not de facto life	Court held the sentences are not de facto life sentences and need not reach the "irreparably corrupt" question; parole eligibility in 50 years distinguishes this from prohibited sentences
Whether the district court abused its discretion and imposed excessive sentences	Sentence was excessive given Steele’s youth and mitigating factors; court failed to apply certain probation-related factors	Court properly considered juvenile factors (Miller/Graham), statutory mitigating evidence, offense severity, and public safety; sentencing within statutory limits	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentencing factors were considered and reliance on alleged improper bias unsupported

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; courts must consider youth-related mitigating factors)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders; youth-sentencing differences matter)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483 (Neb. 2018) (term-of-years sentence not a de facto life sentence where it affords a meaningful, realistic opportunity for release)
State v. Thieszen, 299 Neb. (see opinion) (Neb. 2018) (applied Miller principles to juvenile sentencing)
State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957 (Neb. 2017) (juvenile-sentencing Eighth Amendment considerations)
State v. Pattno, 254 Neb. 733 (1998) (vacating sentence where judge relied on personal religious beliefs)
State v. Bruna, 12 Neb. App. 798 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004) (similar concern about judicial reliance on personal religious views)