State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53

Harold L. Stone, age 58, was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child (Class IB felonies) and one count of child abuse; convictions arose from sexual penetration of a 15-year-old victim.
First-degree sexual assault of a child under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319.01(2) carries a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence and up to life imprisonment; Stone was sentenced 15–20 years on each sexual-assault count and 4–5 years on the child-abuse count.
The trial court ordered two of the four 15–20 year mandatory-minimum sentences to run consecutively; remaining sentences were concurrent.
At sentencing Stone argued the age-based mandatory-minimum scheme violated Equal Protection because older offenders (25+) receive harsher mandatory minimums than younger offenders (19–24) and requested concurrent sentences or treatment as Class II felonies.
Stone conceded that, if the statute is valid, the court was required to impose the 15-year mandatory minimums; he preserved an as-applied challenge by pleading not guilty but did not move to quash (required to preserve a facial challenge).
The Nebraska Supreme Court held Stone waived any facial challenge, classified his claim as facial, and affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive mandatory minimums.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 28-319.01's age-based mandatory-minimum (15 years for actors 25+) violates Equal Protection	Stone: The age classification is arbitrary and has no rational basis; the statute should not subject 25+ offenders to harsher mandatory minimums	State: Stone's challenge is facial (not preserved); statute is constitutional and the proper preservation procedure was not followed for a facial attack	Court: Stone's claim is a facial challenge (seeks to void the classification for all similarly situated offenders); because he did not file a motion to quash, the facial challenge is waived and not reached on appeal
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering consecutive mandatory minimum sentences (i.e., whether sentences were excessive)	Stone: Consecutive mandatory-minimum terms were unreasonable and excessive	State: Sentences were within statutory limits; trial court properly exercised discretion after considering sentencing factors	Court: Sentences within statutory limits; trial court considered required factors and did not abuse its discretion in ordering two mandatory-minimum terms to run consecutively

J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546, 849 N.W.2d 480 (Neb. 2014) (statutory-constitutionality questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612, 828 N.W.2d 163 (Neb. 2013) (appellate review of criminal sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214, 817 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2012) (motion to quash required to preserve facial constitutional 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) (distinguishing facial and as-applied challenges)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377, 847 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2014) (trial court discretion to order consecutive or concurrent sentences)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33, 863 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2015) (specific mandatory-minimum provision controls over general felony minimum)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434, 888 N.W.2d 526 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (Neb. 2017) (sentencing factors court must consider)