State v. Stone, 902 N.W.2d 197

Defendant Harold L. Stone (born ~1958) was tried for multiple sexual offenses against a 15-year-old with disabilities; jury convicted him of four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse.
Each first-degree sexual-assault conviction is a Class IB felony with a statutory 15-year mandatory minimum and up to life; child abuse carried a separate shorter term.
At sentencing Stone argued § 28-319.01’s age-based classification (harsher penalty for actors 25+ vs. younger adults) violated Equal Protection and asked to be sentenced under the lesser Class II scheme or, alternatively, to have mandatory terms run concurrently.
The trial court imposed 15–20 years on each sexual-assault count, ordered two of those sentences to run consecutively, and 4–5 years on the child-abuse count.
On appeal Stone raised (1) an equal-protection challenge to the mandatory-minimum age classification and (2) that consecutive mandatory minimums were excessive; he filed a notice of constitutional question and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stone)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether § 28-319.01’s 25+ age classification violates Equal Protection	The 15-year mandatory minimum for actors 25+ has no rational basis and is arbitrary compared with penalties for younger actors (who would face lesser classification)	The challenge is facial and was not preserved; the scheme is rationally related to legitimate penological interests	Stone’s claim was a facial challenge; because he did not move to quash, he waived the facial challenge and the court did not reach the merits
Whether imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences was an abuse of discretion	Consecutive mandatory minimums are unreasonable and excessive given the circumstances	Sentencing court properly exercised discretion after considering statutory factors and the severity/recidivism risk	No abuse of discretion: sentences within statutory limits; consecutive terms supported by record (grooming, harm, risk assessment)

J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546, 849 N.W.2d 480 (Neb. 2014) (standard for reviewing constitutionality questions)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612, 828 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 2013) (appellate review of sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214, 817 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2012) (motion-to-quash requirement for facial challenges)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912, 885 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2016) (preservation of as-applied challenges by plea of not guilty)
State v. Sanders, 269 Neb. 895, 697 N.W.2d 657 (Neb. 2005) (definition and treatment of facial challenges)
State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 640 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2002) (facial-challenge standard)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377, 847 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2014) (trial court discretion on concurrent vs. consecutive sentences)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687, 879 N.W.2d 684 (Neb. 2016) (mandatory minimums and sentencing discretion)
State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757, 861 N.W.2d 728 (Neb. 2015) (sentencing principles for mandatory-minimum offenses)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33, 863 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2015) (specific mandatory minimum statute controls over general felony minimum)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434, 888 N.W.2d 526 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review of alleged excessive sentence)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (Neb. 2017) (sentencing factors to be considered)