State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53

Harold L. Stone (58) 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 was a Class IB felony with a statutory mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life.
At sentencing Stone argued § 28‑319.01’s age‑based mandatory minimum violates Equal Protection by treating offenders 25+ more harshly than younger offenders (who could be charged as Class II with a lower minimum).
Stone asked the court to sentence him as if the offense were a Class II felony or, alternatively, to run mandatory sentences concurrently rather than consecutively.
The trial court rejected the constitutional challenge, imposed 15–20 years on each sexual‑assault conviction, ordered two of those sentences to run consecutively (others concurrent), and sentenced Stone on the child‑abuse count to 4–5 years.
Stone appealed; he filed a notice of constitutional question and raised (1) an Equal Protection challenge to the mandatory minimum and (2) that consecutive mandatory minimums were excessive.

Issue	Stone's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 28‑319.01’s age‑based mandatory minimum violates Equal Protection	The statute arbitrarily imposes a substantially harsher mandatory minimum on offenders age 25+ than on younger offenders; no rational basis for classification	The challenge is effectively facial (not preserved); statute survives rational‑basis review	Court held Stone advanced a facial challenge, which he waived by not moving to quash, so the claim is not preserved and was not reached on the merits
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive mandatory minimum sentences	Consecutive mandatory minimums were unreasonable/excessive; Stone asked for concurrent sentences	Trial court properly considered sentencing factors and has discretion to order consecutive sentences unless statute mandates otherwise	Court affirmed: sentencing within statutory limits and no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive mandatory minimums

J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546, 849 N.W.2d 480 (discusses independent review of statutory constitutionality)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612, 828 N.W.2d 163 (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214, 817 N.W.2d 258 (procedure for facial constitutional challenge and motion to quash requirement)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912, 885 N.W.2d 523 (as‑applied challenges preserved by plea of not guilty)
State v. Sanders, 269 Neb. 895, 697 N.W.2d 657 (definition and treatment of facial challenges)
State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 640 N.W.2d 1 (facial‑challenge standards)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377, 847 N.W.2d 732 (trial court discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687, 879 N.W.2d 684 (mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing discretion)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33, 863 N.W.2d 813 (specific mandatory minimum controls over general minimum)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434, 888 N.W.2d 526 (standard for appellate review of alleged excessive sentence)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (factors sentencing court must consider)