State v. Thieszen, 912 N.W.2d 696

Background

In 1987, 14‑year‑old Sydney L. Thieszen shot and killed his 12‑year‑old sister; he was convicted (after retrial) of first degree murder and a firearm offense and sentenced to life plus 80–240 months.
Postconviction proceedings: earlier convictions vacated in 1994; retried and reconvicted; in 2013 Thieszen obtained relief under Miller v. Alabama and was remanded for resentencing.
A 2017 mitigation hearing produced extensive evidence: early childhood physical/sexual abuse, multiple foster placements, diagnoses of conduct-related disorders in adolescence, expert testimony on adolescent brain development, and more recent prison disciplinary history showing decline in infractions and demonstrated remorse and pro‑social behavior.
Two mental‑health evaluators found mixed results: evidence of impulsivity and past conduct problems, but average‑to‑above intelligence, low current violence risk, and no major active mental illness; one diagnosed antisocial personality disorder historically but not recently.
At resentencing the court expressly considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors, rejected several evidentiary objections (letters and a sister’s victim statement), and imposed 70 years to life for murder, consecutive to the existing firearm sentence.

Issues

Issue	Thieszen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether presentence letters should be stricken	Letters were anonymous, baseless, inflammatory; court should exclude them	Sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider relevant information; court already excluded unsigned letters and weighed credibility	Court did not abuse discretion; it struck some letters and limited weight of others
Whether victim impact statement by sister was improper	Sister not a statutory "victim" (nearest surviving relatives—parents—are alive); thus her oral statement was unauthorized	Statutory victim‑impact rights set a baseline; court may consider other family statements as part of sentencing discretion, especially when parents declined to participate	Court allowed the sister to speak; no abuse of discretion
Whether 70 years to life is excessive (and constitutes de facto life without parole)	Sentence is excessive given youth at offense; effectively delays parole eligibility until age ~53 and functions as life without meaningful hope	Sentence is within statutory limits; court considered youth and mitigating evidence and ensured a term‑of‑years minimum that allows a meaningful opportunity for release	Sentence within statutory range; court properly weighed factors; not an abuse of discretion; provides a meaningful opportunity for release
Whether sentence is disproportionate / requires finding of irreparable corruption	Argues lengthy term for a juvenile is disproportionate and requires a finding of irreparable corruption to justify life‑type punishment	Court considered youth‑specific mitigating factors per statute and Miller; facts (intentional multiple shootings, planning e.g., purchasing shells) justify severe punishment	No proportionality violation found; no abuse of discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
State v. Thieszen, 232 Neb. 952 (1989) (Thieszen direct appeal)
State v. Thieszen, 295 Neb. 293 (2016) (postconviction/Miller remand decision)
State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22 (2017) (comparative resentencing of juvenile offender)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483 (2018) (standard for reviewing sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (2009) (victim‑impact statements; sentencing court discretion to consider additional sources)
State v. Casares, 291 Neb. 150 (2015) (broad discretion in sentencing evidence)