State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53

Harold L. Stone (58) was tried and convicted on four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse for offenses against a 15-year-old with disabilities.
First-degree sexual assault of a child convictions are Class IB felonies with a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life imprisonment; child abuse conviction carried a shorter term.
At sentencing Stone argued § 28-319.01’s age-based mandatory minimum (15 years for offenders 25 and older vs. lower classification for younger offenders) violated Equal Protection, asking to be sentenced as if the offense were a Class II felony.
The trial court imposed 15–20 years on each sexual-assault count, 4–5 years on child abuse, and ordered two of the sexual-assault sentences to run consecutively; the rest concurrent.
On appeal Stone raised (1) an as-applied Equal Protection challenge to the mandatory minimum (framed by the court as a facial challenge) and (2) that consecutive mandatory minimums were excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 28-319.01’s age-based mandatory minimum violates Equal Protection	Stone: No rational basis to impose harsher mandatory minimums on offenders 25+; statute unconstitutional as applied	State: Challenge is actually facial; defendant waived any facial challenge by not moving to quash	Court: Stone’s claim is facial, he waived it by not filing a motion to quash; claim not preserved, court does not reach merits
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering consecutive mandatory minimum sentences	Stone: Consecutive mandatory minimums are excessive/unreasonable	State: Trial court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences unless statute requires otherwise; court considered factors	Court: Sentences within statutory limits; court considered required factors; no abuse of discretion; consecutive terms affirmed

J.M. v. Hobbs, 288 Neb. 546, 849 N.W.2d 480 (2014) (constitutional questions reviewed independently)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612, 828 N.W.2d 163 (2013) (appellate review of sentences)
State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214, 817 N.W.2d 258 (2012) (motion to quash required for facial challenges)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912, 885 N.W.2d 523 (2016) (preservation of as-applied challenges)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377, 847 N.W.2d 732 (2014) (trial court discretion on concurrent vs consecutive sentences)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687, 879 N.W.2d 684 (2016) (mandatory minimums and sentencing discretion)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434, 888 N.W.2d 526 (2016) (appellate review standard for alleged excessive sentence)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017) (sentencing factors to be considered)
State v. Hynek, 263 Neb. 310, 640 N.W.2d 1 (2002) (definition and standards for facial constitutional challenges)