Opinion ID: 2005169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: rodriguez' sentences were constitutional

Text: Rodriguez contends that his sentences were unconstitutional and require clarification or resentencing. He argues that after the murders, the Legislature, in a special session, changed the sentence for a Class IA felony from Life imprisonment to Life imprisonment without parole. See 2002 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1, 3d Spec. Sess. (Nov. 22, 2002). See, also, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-105(1) (Cum. Supp. 2006). Before trial, Rodriguez filed an amended motion to quash, arguing that L.B. 1 was unconstitutional. The trial court overruled the motion. In May 2004, the trial court sentenced Rodriguez to life in a correctional institution for each of the murder counts. Subsequently, we decided State v. Conover, 270 Neb. 446, 703 N.W.2d 898 (2005). In Conover, the appellant had been sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment without parole, after L.B. 1 was passed. We held, however, that this amendment to § 28-105(1) was unconstitutional because it was not related to the purpose for which the special session was called. And the previous version of the statute was still in effect. Thus, we held that at the time of [the appellant's] sentencing, the district court had statutory authority to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on each of the two counts of first degree murder, but it lacked authority to add the phrase `without parole.' Consequently, the sentences were erroneous but not void. Conover, 270 Neb. at 452, 703 N.W.2d at 904. Because we concluded that the appellant's sentences were erroneous, we remanded the cause with directions to resentence the appellant to life imprisonment. Rodriguez obliquely argues that because resentencing was necessary in Conover, it is necessary that the court clarify his sentences as well. Here, however, the district court sentenced Rodriguez to life for each count of first degree murder, the statutorily authorized sentence. See Conover, supra . The court did not add the phrase without parole to the sentences. Unlike in Conover, these sentences are valid under the preamendment version of § 28-105(1) and do not require clarification or resentencing. This assignment of error is without merit.