State v. Sullivan, 983 N.W.2d 541

Background:

Sullivan pleaded no contest to one count of felony child abuse under a plea agreement that dismissed sexual assault counts and removed sex-offender registration and habitual-offender allegations.
The district court sentenced Sullivan to 3 years’ imprisonment and 18 months of post-release supervision, adopting the probation office’s recommended conditions; neither party objected at sentencing.
Before Sullivan’s release, the probation office filed a § 29-2263(3) application (but the court proceeded under Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1904) seeking to add sex-offender specific conditions, an evaluation requirement, and GPS monitoring.
At the § 6-1904 hearing, the State relied on probation testimony and preincarceration police reports; Sullivan objected, arguing the State had to show new circumstances to change conditions.
The court added all requested conditions; on appeal Sullivan argued the additions were improper because the State failed to prove new circumstances and § 6-1904 cannot be used to collaterally attack a valid sentence.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which procedure governs pre-release modification: § 29-2263(3) or Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1904?	§ 29-2263(3) (probation statute) should control the change process.	§ 6-1904 governs pre-release modification of post-release supervision orders.	§ 6-1904 governs pre-release modifications; § 29-2263(3) applies only while offender is an active probationer.
Must the State show new circumstances to add conditions under § 6-1904?	The State need only submit the probation office’s recommendation; modification can be granted based on the plan.	The State must show new circumstances not known at sentencing to justify changes.	The State cannot seek changes absent new circumstances; objections known at sentencing must be raised then.
Can § 6-1904 be used to collaterally attack a sentence or avoid appeal deadlines?	The procedure is a routine modification tool and does not revive appeal rights.	Using § 6-1904 to add conditions based on preexisting information circumvents appeal deadlines.	§ 6-1904 cannot be used to collaterally attack a sentence or effectively eliminate the deadline to appeal.
Application to Sullivan: which added conditions stand?	All requested sex-offender conditions, GPS, and evaluation are justified.	Only the no-contact-with-victims condition was supported by new information; other additions were based on preexisting facts.	Only the no-contact-with-victims condition was supported by new circumstances and is affirmed; all other added conditions are nullities and vacated.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Paulsen, 304 Neb. 21 (2019) (probation-modification relief cannot be used to collaterally attack a sentence)
State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469 (2017) (conditions of post-release supervision must be specifically objected to at sentencing to preserve appellate review)
State v. Reames, 308 Neb. 361 (2021) (objections to supervision conditions may be waived if not preserved)
In re App. No. P-12.32 of Black Hills Neb. Gas, 311 Neb. 813 (2022) (statutory and rule interpretation are questions of law)
State v. Kidder, 299 Neb. 232 (2018) (a sentence takes effect when pronounced; later differing terms are nullities)