Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed as a juvenile. In 2015, he was granted postconviction relief in light of the U.S Supreme Court decision in 2012 Miller v. Alabama, and he was resentenced to a term of 90 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence" given its length. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the sentence, saying that sentencing someone to life without parole is still permissible in light of Miller v. Alabama in certain instances, and that the defendant did not meet the criteria to have his sentence reduced.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed as a juvenile. In 2015, he was granted postconviction relief in light of the U.S Supreme Court decision in 2012 Miller v. Alabama, and he was resentenced to a term of 90 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence" given its length. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the sentence, saying that sentencing someone to life without parole is still permissible in light of Miller v. Alabama in certain instances, and that the defendant did not meet the criteria to have his sentence reduced.
Summary
A defendant convicted of first-degree murder as a juvenile was sentenced to life in prison. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama, he was granted postconviction relief and resentenced to 90 years. The defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and essentially a life sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the sentence, finding that life without parole is permissible in certain cases and that the defendant did not meet the criteria for a reduced sentence.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed as a juvenile. In 2015, he was granted postconviction relief in light of the U.S Supreme Court decision in 2012 Miller v. Alabama, and he was resentenced to a term of 90 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence" given its length. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the sentence, saying that sentencing someone to life without parole is still permissible in light of Miller v. Alabama in certain instances, and that the defendant did not meet the criteria to have his sentence reduced.
Summary
This case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder for a crime committed as a juvenile. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, but in 2015, he received post-conviction relief based on the 2012 Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. This ruling limited mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles. The defendant was resentenced to 90 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence."
The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the sentence, finding that life without parole remains a permissible sentencing option for juveniles in certain cases. They concluded that the defendant's case did not meet the criteria for a reduced sentence.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed as a juvenile. In 2015, he was granted postconviction relief in light of the U.S Supreme Court decision in 2012 Miller v. Alabama, and he was resentenced to a term of 90 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence" given its length. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the sentence, saying that sentencing someone to life without parole is still permissible in light of Miller v. Alabama in certain instances, and that the defendant did not meet the criteria to have his sentence reduced.
Summary
This case involves a young person who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. After the Supreme Court ruled on a similar case in 2012, the convicted person was granted a new sentence. This new sentence was 90 years in prison, but the convicted person appealed, arguing that this was still too long of a sentence.
The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the 90-year sentence, concluding that a life sentence without parole is still possible in some cases, and that this convicted person's case did not meet the requirements for a reduced sentence.
Abstract
This case involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed as a juvenile. In 2015, he was granted postconviction relief in light of the U.S Supreme Court decision in 2012 Miller v. Alabama, and he was resentenced to a term of 90 years in prison. He appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive and amounted to a "de facto life sentence" given its length. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the sentence, saying that sentencing someone to life without parole is still permissible in light of Miller v. Alabama in certain instances, and that the defendant did not meet the criteria to have his sentence reduced.
Summary
A man was found guilty of murder and sent to prison for life. He was a teenager when he did it. In 2015, a court decided he might not have been punished fairly because of a new rule the Supreme Court made in 2012. The man got a new sentence of 90 years in prison.
He thought that 90 years was too long and that it was basically like a life sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court said that it was okay to sentence someone to life in prison even though they were a teenager at the time, but only in some cases. The man's case didn't fit the rules for getting his sentence reduced.