State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53

Harold L. Stone, then 58, was tried and convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse based on conduct against a 15-year-old victim.
First-degree convictions were Class IB felonies carrying a 15-year mandatory minimum and up to life; Stone received 15–20 years on each sexual-assault count and 4–5 years on the child-abuse count.
The trial court ordered two of the 15–20 year sexual-assault sentences to run consecutively; the others were concurrent.
At sentencing Stone argued § 28-319.01’s age-based mandatory minimum (15 years for actors 25 and older) violated Equal Protection because younger offenders receive lesser mandatory minimums.
Stone also argued the consecutive mandatory-minimum sentences were excessive; he asked for concurrent sentences.
The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket, considered preservation of the constitutional claim, and reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Stone's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 28‑319.01’s age‑based 15‑year mandatory minimum violates Equal Protection	The statute arbitrarily treats offenders 25+ harsher than younger offenders without a rational basis	Stone framed it as as‑applied but the State argued it is a facial challenge that Stone failed to preserve	Court held Stone’s claim was a facial challenge, which he waived by failing to move to quash; claim not reached on merits
Whether sentencing two mandatory‑minimum terms consecutively was an abuse of discretion or excessive	Consecutive mandatory minimums were unreasonable and excessive; requested concurrent sentences	The State argued the trial court properly exercised discretion to impose consecutive sentences within statutory limits	Court affirmed: consecutive sentences were within statutory limits and the court did not abuse its discretion; sentencing factors were considered

J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546 (statute constitutionality is reviewed de novo)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612 (sentences within statutory limits not disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214 (facial challenges to criminal statutes must be raised by motion to quash)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912 (as‑applied challenges preserved by plea of not guilty)
State v. Sanders, 269 Neb. 895 (definition and framing of facial constitutional challenges)
State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310 (facial challenge requires showing no valid application exists)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377 (trial court discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687 (mandatory minimums do not automatically preclude concurrent/consecutive discretion)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33 (specific mandatory minimum controls over more general minimum provisions)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434 (standard for appellate review of alleged excessive sentence)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265 (sentencing factors to be considered)