- 573 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Keshaud D. Hunt, appel

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 6, 2018. No. S-17-327.

1. Criminal Law: Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and 

Error. A trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer a pending criminal 

proceeding to the juvenile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

2. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a 

trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, 

and evidence.

3. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion 

by the trial court.

4. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. In order to retain proceedings 

in criminal court, the court need not resolve every statutory factor in 

favor of transfer against the juvenile, and there are no weighted factors 

and no prescribed method by which more or less weight is assigned to 

a specific factor. It is a balancing test by which public protection and 

societal security are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile.

5. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Evidence. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816(3) 

(Reissue 2016), after considering the evidence and the criteria set forth 

in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Reissue 2016), the court shall transfer the 

case to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case 

in county court or district court.

6. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Judgments. When ruling on a motion to 

transfer to juvenile court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816(3) (Reissue 

2016), the county or district court must set forth findings supporting 

its decision.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/11/2018 01:09 AM CDT
- 574 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

7. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. In a motion to transfer 

to juvenile court, the burden of proving a sound basis for retaining 

jurisdiction in county court or district court lies with the State.

8. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Evidence. When a district 

court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction over a juvenile is supported by 

appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court.

9. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Where a sentence imposed within the 

statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court 

must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in 

considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable 

legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.

10. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or 

record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as 

well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the amount of violence 

involved in the commission of the crime.

11. ____. Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to direct that 

sentences imposed for separate crimes be served either concurrently 

or consecutively. This is so, even when offenses carry a mandatory 

minimum sentence, unless the statute requires that consecutive sentences 

be imposed.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Gary B.

Randall, Judge. Affirme

James Martin Davis, of Davis Law Office, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Marfisi 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ., and 

Judge.

Stacy, 

Keshaud D. Hunt was 15 years old when he was charged 

in district court with multiple felonies arising from two armed 

robberies. His motion to transfer the case to juvenile court was 

overruled, and eventually, he pled no contest to an amended 

information. At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied 
- 575 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

Hunt’s request for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile 

Code1 and instead imposed consecutive prison sentences. Hunt 

appeals, assigning error to the denial of his motion to transfer and his request for disposition under the juvenile code. 

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2016, Hunt was charged with attempted second degree murder, robbery, attempted robbery, and three 

counts of using a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony. 

All charges stemmed from events alleged to have occurred 

on March 16 in Omaha, Nebraska. Hunt was 15 years old at 

the time, and the charges were filed in the Douglas County 

District Court.2

Motion to Tran

After entering pleas of not guilty to the charges, Hunt moved 

to transfer the case to juvenile court pursuant to § 29-1816(3). 

An evidentiary hearing was held on September 8, 2016.

The State offered two exhibits, both of which were received. 

The first exhibit was a probable cause affidavit detailing Hunt’s 

alleged crimes and the ensuing investigation. That exhibit 

showed that on March 16, 2016, around 8:15 p.m., a suspect 

wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and gray shoes entered a 

convenience store on South 24th Street in Omaha. He pulled 

out a black semiautomatic handgun and pointed it at two store 

employees while demanding money from the cash register. One 

of the employees pulled out his own handgun and told the suspect to drop his gun. The suspect exclaimed “‘don’t do it’” and 

began retreating toward the door. But instead of leaving, the 

suspect ran back toward the employee, while firing multiple 

shots from the handgun. One shot grazed the employee’s waist. 

The suspect then fled the scene.

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204(5) (Supp. 2017).

2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1816(1)(a)(ii) and 43-246.01(3)(c) (Reissue 

2016).
- 576 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

Later the same night around 10 o’clock, a suspect wearing a 

black hooded sweatshirt and gray shoes entered another Omaha 

convenience store, located on North 72d Street. He approached 

an unarmed security guard and placed a black semiautomatic 

handgun to the guard’s face. The suspect took approximately 

$200 from the registers and left the store.

A Crime Stoppers tip led investigators to Hunt. After speaking with Hunt’s juvenile probation officer, police learned that 

Hunt’s electronic tracking device showed he had visited an 

Omaha grocery store on the evening of March 16, 2016. Video 

from the grocery store showed Hunt wearing a black hooded 

sweatshirt and gray shoes with the same markings as the shoes 

worn in both convenience store robberies. Police also learned 

that Hunt returned home from the grocery store and cut off his 

electronic monitoring device around 7:45 p.m. The first convenience store was robbed approximately 30 minutes later.

The second exhibit was a certified copy of Hunt’s juvenile 

court file. That file showed that in 2015, Hunt was found to be 

within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247 (Cum. Supp. 

2014) as a result of committing multiple armed robberies when 

he was 14 years old. The juvenile petition alleged that on or 

about July 28, 2015, Hunt committed the crimes of (1) using 

a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, (2) two counts 

of robbery, (3) two counts of attempted robbery, and (4) two 

counts of tampering with physical evidence. Hunt eventually 

admitted to one count of using a deadly weapon (firearm) to 

commit a felony (a Class IC felony), one count of robbery (a 

Class II felony), one count of attempted robbery (a Class II 

felony), and one count of tampering with physical evidence 

(a Class IV felony). One of the 2015 robberies involved the 

same convenience store Hunt was accused of robbing in 

March 2016.

The juvenile court accepted Hunt’s admissions to the 2015 

crimes and placed him in “shelter care” under the supervision 

of juvenile probation pending disposition. On December 22, 

2015, Hunt was returned to his mother’s home, ordered to wear 
- 577 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

an electronic monitoring device and abide by the conditions of 

the “H.O.M.E.” program, and ordered to participate in individual counseling and gang prevention services. On January 

25, 2016, the court ordered Hunt to participate in additional 

counseling and treatment programs and scheduled a continued 

disposition hearing for June 27. But before that hearing, Hunt 

was arrested for the March 2016 robberies.

At the transfer hearing, Hunt offered the testimony of his 

juvenile probation officer, Ladonna Strong. Strong had supervised Hunt since June 2016. Strong testified that Hunt, who 

was being housed at the Douglas County Youth Center at the 

time of the transfer hearing, had been respectful, patient, open, 

and honest with her. According to Strong, Hunt was a member 

of a gang in Omaha. She suggested Hunt would benefit from a 

structured rehabilitative environment.

Strong testified that after the 2015 robberies but before the 

robbery charges in March 2016, the State sought a group home 

placement for Hunt given the amount of time he had spent in 

the Douglas County Youth Center, but Hunt was rejected by 

both Boys Town and Omaha Home for Boys primarily due 

to the serious nature of his 2015 charges. Hunt applied to a 

group home facility in Arizona which was willing to accept 

him, but he was returned home with his mother and put on 

electronic monitoring.

Strong testified that Hunt and his family received numerous 

services once Hunt returned home, including family support, 

gang intervention, individual and family therapy, and electronic 

monitoring. Hunt was ordered to participate in “pro-social 

activit[ies],” attend school, and attend individual and family 

therapy. He initially complied, but within a few weeks, he was 

suspended from school for fighting, began missing curfew, cut 

off his electronic monitoring device, and used marijuana. As a 

result, the State already was seeking to revoke Hunt’s placement when, on March 16, 2016, Hunt cut off his electronic 

monitor a second time and allegedly committed the current 

felony offenses.
- 578 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

Strong testified that although Hunt had been accepted to 

the Arizona group home facility before his current charges, he 

had no pending application at the time of the transfer hearing, 

and there was no guarantee Hunt would be accepted into the 

Arizona facility again. Strong testified that the secure youth 

detention facility in Kearney, Nebraska, was a housing option 

of last resort from which Hunt could not be rejected. Strong 

testified the Kearney facility offered therapy and services 

directed to youth that she believed would benefit Hunt. But 

she noted that therapy and other services are also available in 

adult prisons.

The district court took the motion to transfer under advisement and later denied it in a written order entered September 

12, 2016. In its order, the district court found that Hunt’s 

current and prior offenses were extremely violent and aggressive and committed in a premeditated manner. It found that 

although Hunt was only 15 years old, he was charged with 

crimes of violence involving guns used to rob others, and his 

crimes exhibited sophistication and maturity. The district court 

found that Hunt was a gang member and his motivation for 

committing the charged offenses was self-serving. It determined that although Hunt may be amenable to treatment, there 

were no guarantees “or even reasonable assurances” that Hunt 

would be accepted into a group home setting given this was his 

second episode of seriously violent offenses within a 9-month 

period, and the court concluded that without detention and 

rehabilitative treatment, Hunt presented a serious risk to the 

community. The court also found it was in Hunt’s best interests 

to be continued in secure detention.

Ultimately, after weighing all the statutory factors, the district court concluded Hunt “exhibited behavior . . . of being a 

juvenile out of control, with access to multiple hand guns willing to commit violent acts of robbery without regard for the 

safety and welfare of others and as a result [found Hunt] to be 

a danger to the community.” Thus, the district court retained 

jurisdiction and overruled Hunt’s motion to transfer.
- 579 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

At the time Hunt’s motion to transfer was denied, such an 

order was not final and appealable.3 However, we note that 

effective August 24, 2017, the Legislature amended the relevant statute to provide that “[a]n order granting or denying 

transfer of the case from county or district court to juvenile 

court shall be considered a final order for the purposes of 

appeal” and to give “any party” the right to appeal from such 

order within 10 days.4

Plea and Se

Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hunt pled no contest to an amended information charging one count of using 

a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony (a Class IC 

felony), one count of robbery (a Class II felony), and one count 

of first degree assault (a Class II felony). The court accepted 

Hunt’s pleas, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence 

investigation report.

The presentence report concluded Hunt was at a high risk 

to reoffend and recommended the court consider a sentence 

of incarceration “to promote accountability, to protect society 

and provide [Hunt] with any and all services deemed to be 

appropriate through the Douglas County Youth Center and the 

Nebraska Department of [Correctional Services].”

At the sentencing hearing on February 23, 2017, Hunt’s 

counsel asked the court to consider disposition under the 

Nebraska Juvenile Code.5 In support, Hunt’s counsel cited 

Strong’s testimony at the transfer hearing that Hunt would 

improve in a structured, secured facility geared toward youth. 

The attorney reminded the court about the facility in Arizona, 

but offered no proof the facility would still accept Hunt. 

Alternatively, Hunt’s attorney asked the court to impose the 

“lowest level of incarceration” permitted for the convictions.

3 See State v. Bluett, 295 Neb. 369, 889 N.W.2d 83 (2016).

4 § 29-1816(3)(c) (Supp. 2017). See 2017 Neb. Laws, L.B. 11, § 1.

5 See § 29-2204(5).
- 580 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

The State asked the court to impose consecutive prison 

terms and asked that the terms be “substantial,” observing that 

Hunt already had “committed more violent crime in [a] few 

years [than] most really violent offenders do in a lifetime.”

The district court denied Hunt’s request for disposition 

under the juvenile code, reasoning that Hunt was on probation 

for violent armed robberies when he committed the violent 

crimes for which he was being sentenced, and “obviously 

[was] getting no benefits from the supervision of the juvenile 

court.” The court referenced Hunt’s violent criminal history 

and the impact of Hunt’s crimes, particularly on the convenience store employee who was shot. The court expressed 

how difficult it was to sentence Hunt, who had turned 16 by 

the time of the hearing, to prison. But the court stated that 

after reading the presentence investigation report, it concluded 

Hunt was a public danger and, in order to protect the community, Hunt needed to be incarcerated “long enough [to] 

grow up.”

The court sentenced Hunt to 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment 

on the robbery conviction, 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment on 

the first degree assault conviction, and 5 to 20 years’ imprisonment on the conviction for use of a firearm to commit a 

felony. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. 

The court advised Hunt that assuming he lost no good time, he 

would be eligible for parole in 20 years, at the age of 36, and 

would be mandatorily discharged in 321⁄2 years. Hunt timely 

filed this direct appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Hunt assigns the district court erred by (1) denying his 

motion to transfer to juvenile court and (2) refusing his request 

for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and, instead, 

imposing excessive sentences.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] A trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer a pending criminal proceeding to the juvenile court is reviewed for 
- 581 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

an abuse of discretion.6 An abuse of discretion occurs when a 

trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable 

or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.7

[3] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed 

within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court.8

ANALYSIS

No Abuse of Discre

in Denying T

Motions to transfer a pending criminal case to juvenile 

court are governed by § 29-1816(3) (Reissue 2016) and Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-276(1) (Reissue 2016). Generally speaking, 

§ 29-1816(3) sets forth the procedure to be followed, and 

§ 43-276(1) enumerates the factors a court must consider when 

ruling on a motion to transfer, which include

(a) [t]he type of treatment such juvenile would most 

likely be amenable to; (b) whether there is evidence that 

the alleged offense included violence; (c) the motivation 

for the commission of the offense; (d) the age of the 

juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others 

involved in the offense; (e) the previous history of the 

juvenile, including whether he or she had been convicted 

of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court; 

(f) the best interests of the juvenile; (g) consideration of 

public safety; (h) consideration of the juvenile’s ability 

to appreciate the nature and seriousness of his or her 

conduct; (i) whether the best interests of the juvenile and 

the security of the public may require that the juvenile 

continue in secure detention or under supervision for a 

period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so, 

6 State v. Bluett, supra note 3.

7 Id.

8 State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53, 902 N.W.2d 197 (2017).
- 582 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) 

whether the victim agrees to participate in mediation; 

(k) whether there is a juvenile pretrial diversion program 

established pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07; 

(l) whether the juvenile has been convicted of or has 

acknowledged unauthorized use or possession of a firearm; (m) whether a juvenile court order has been issued 

for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.03; (n) 

whether the juvenile is a criminal street gang member; 

and (o) such other matters as the parties deem relevant to 

aid in the decision.

[4] In order to retain the proceedings, the court need not 

resolve every statutory factor against the juvenile, and there 

are no weighted factors and no prescribed method by which 

more or less weight is assigned to a specific factor.9 It is a 

balancing test by which public protection and societal security 

are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of the juvenile.10

[5,6] After the court considers the evidence in light of the 

§ 43-276 factors, “the case shall be transferred to juvenile 

court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case in 

county court or district court.”11 The court is required to “set 

forth findings for the reason for its decision” on the motion 

to transfer.12

[7] The burden of proving a sound basis for retention lies 

with the State.13 Hunt argues that the State failed to meet its 

burden and that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant the transfer. We disagree.

Summarized, the evidence at the transfer hearing showed 

Hunt was a gang member and had been adjudicated in 2015 

9 State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (2015).

10 Id.

11 § 29-1816(3)(a).

12 § 29-1816(3)(b).

13 State v. Dominguez, supra note 9.
- 583 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

for robberies involving firearms when he was 14 years old. He 

had been detained in the Douglas County Youth Center, placed 

in “shelter care,” and returned home under probation supervision on electronic monitoring. Hunt had received, among 

other services, drug and alcohol testing, a psychological evaluation, electronic monitoring, individual and family therapy, 

and gang intervention services. Despite these services, Hunt 

was suspended from school for fighting, cut off his electronic 

monitoring device to avoid supervision, and used controlled 

substances. On March 16, 2016, Hunt cut off his electronic 

monitor for the second time, robbed two convenience stores at 

gunpoint, and shot an employee.

In its order denying Hunt’s motion to transfer, the district court considered each of the applicable factors listed in 

§ 43-276 and made specific findings. After weighing the various factors, the district court concluded there was a sound basis 

for retaining jurisdiction over the case and denied the motion 

to transfer.

[8] When a district court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction 

over a juvenile is supported by appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in refusing to 

transfer the case to juvenile court.14 The record in this case 

fully supports the reasoning of the district court, and we find 

no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt’s motion to transfer the 

case to juvenile court.

No Abuse of Discre

in Sent

Hunt argues the district court abused its discretion by refusing to enter disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and, 

instead, imposing consecutive prison sentences totaling 35 to 

60 years, which he argues is excessive.

Hunt was convicted of (1) using a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, a Class IC felony punishable by 

14 Id.
- 584 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

imprisonment for a mandatory minimum of 5 years and a 

maximum of 50 years15; (2) robbery, a Class II felony punishable by imprisonment for 1 to 50 years16; and (3) first degree 

assault, a Class II felony punishable by imprisonment for 1 to 

50 years.17 And because Hunt was under 18 years of age when 

he committed his crimes, the district court had the discretion to 

make disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code:

Except when a term of life is required by law, whenever 

the defendant was under eighteen years of age at the 

time he or she committed the crime for which he or she 

was convicted, the court may, in its discretion, instead of 

imposing the penalty provided for the crime, make such 

disposition of the defendant as the court deems proper 

under the Nebraska Juvenile Code.18

The district court denied Hunt’s request for disposition 

under the juvenile code, explaining that at the time he committed the violent armed robbery for which he was being 

sentenced, he was under juvenile probation supervision for 

committing violent armed robberies in 2015 and “obviously 

[was] getting no benefits from the supervision of the juvenile 

court.” Moreover, the court reasoned that due to the serious 

danger Hunt posed to the community, it was necessary that he 

be incarcerated well beyond the age of majority. We find no 

abuse of discretion in denying Hunt’s motion for disposition 

under the juvenile code.

[9] Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the sentences 

imposed. Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits 

is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must 

determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion 

in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as 

15 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1205(1)(c) (Reissue 2016) and 28-105(1) (Supp. 

2015).

16 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324 (Reissue 2016) and § 28-105(1).

17 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-308 (Reissue 2016) and § 28-105(1).

18 § 29-2204(5).
- 585 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

STATE v. HUNT

Cite as 299 Neb. 573

any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to 

be imposed.19

[10,11] When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is 

to consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education 

and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past 

criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense 

and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of 

the crime.20 Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to 

direct that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served 

either concurrently or consecutively.21 This is so even when 

offenses carry a mandatory minimum sentence, unless the statute requires that consecutive sentences be imposed.22

The sentence imposed on each of Hunt’s convictions was 

well within the statutory limits, and the record shows the 

court considered and applied the necessary sentencing factors. Hunt’s criminal history was significant, his crimes were 

violent and involved firearms, and his behavior was escalating 

despite the services and supervision provided in juvenile court. 

Moreover, Hunt’s presentence report concluded he was at a 

high risk to reoffend. We cannot find an abuse of discretion in 

the sentences imposed.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the district 

court is affirmed.

Affirmed

Wright, Miller-Lerman, and Kelch, JJ., not particip

19 State v. Stone, supra note 8.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.