Opinion ID: 4677899
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Excessive Sentences Claim We begin by considering Starks’ claim that his sentences are excessive. The first step in analyzing whether sentences are excessive is to examine the statutory limits on penalties for such ­offenses. 12 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Cum. Supp. 2020) sets maximum penalties for the felony offenses at issue here. Under that statute, a Class IIA felony is punishable by a maximum term of 20 years’ imprisonment and a Class IV felony is punishable by a maximum term of 2 years’ imprisonment. 13 8 See State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376, 940 N.W.2d 552 (2020). 9 See Clausen, supra note 6. 10 State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020), modified on denial of rehearing 306 Neb. 498, 945 N.W.2d 888. 11 See State v. Kantaras, 294 Neb. 960, 885 N.W.2d 558 (2016). 12 See Clausen, supra note 6. 13 § 28-105(1). - 533 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 308 Neb. 527 Starks was sentenced to 8 to 16 years’ imprisonment for his Class IIA felony and 2 years’ imprisonment for each of his Class IV felonies. Those sentences did not exceed the limits of § 28-105(1). Consequently, our analysis of whether Starks’ sentences are excessive is limited to a review for abuse of discretion. 14 Before imposing Starks’ sentences, the district court stated that it “ha[d] considered everything in the [PSI report]” and everything stated at the sentencing hearing. Starks characterizes this analysis as inadequate. He contends that it demonstrates the district court’s failure to adequately weigh various factors that mitigated the severity of his offenses. According to Starks, “the district court abused its discretion by tailoring the sentence to the crime, not the individual offender.” 15 [7,8] In reviewing whether an abuse of discretion occurred during sentencing, an appellate court determines whether the sentencing court considered and applied the relevant factors and any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed. 16 Relevant factors in that analysis may include 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. 17 [9-11] While these factors should instruct a sentencing court, they do not comprise a mathematical formula that must be rigidly implemented. 18 Rather, they are among the relevant factors that may be considered. 19 A sentence should 14 See Clausen, supra note 6. 15 Brief for appellant at 5. 16 See State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773, 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020). 17 See Clausen, supra note 6. 18 See State v. Gray, 307 Neb. 418, 949 N.W.2d 320 (2020). 19 See id. See, also, Clausen, supra note 6. - 534 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 308 Neb. 527 be tailored and based on factors that “fit the offender and not merely the crime.” 20 The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment that includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defend­ ant’s life. 21 Here, the sources cited in the district court’s order amply support the sentences that were imposed. Both the parties’ testimony and the PSI report provide highly personalized, relevant evidence about Starks’ life, character, and previous conduct. 22 And while some of that evidence mitigated the severity of Starks’ offenses, other evidence did not. The evidence revealed, for example, Starks’ lengthy criminal history, including previous convictions for drug use and theft; his troubling signs of drug and alcohol abuse and of antisocial behavior; and his resistance to rehabilitative efforts in the past, as demonstrated by his noncooperation with the terms of probation following his possession of a controlled substance conviction. These individualized factors led to a sentencing recommendation in the PSI report of a term of incarceration based on Starks’ “very high risk to re-offend.” [12] It is not this court’s function to conduct a de novo review and a reweighing of the sentencing factors in the record. 23 Instead, it is enough for us to conclude that the district court’s reasons for Starks’ sentences are not clearly untenable and do not unfairly deprive him of a substantial right and just result. 24 We thus cannot say that Starks’ sentences are an abuse of discretion. Starks’ lone assigned error is without merit. 20 See State v. Gibson, 302 Neb. 833, 844, 925 N.W.2d 678, 686 (2019) (citing State v. Harrison, 255 Neb. 990, 588 N.W.2d 556 (1999)). 21 Clausen, supra note 6. 22 See State v. Hurd, 307 Neb. 393, 949 N.W.2d 339 (2020). 23 See State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581, 941 N.W.2d 474 (2020). 24 See id. See, also, Clausen, supra note 6. - 535 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 308 Neb. 527 Plain Error Analysis The State notes in its brief that even though Starks’ sentences are not excessive, the district court’s formulation of those sentences was, in part, erroneous. According to the State, the district court erred in rendering determinate sentences for each of Starks’ Class IV felonies. [13-15] We recently explained the distinction between a determinate and indeterminate sentence: “A determinate sentence is imposed when the defendant is sentenced to a single term of years, such as a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. . . . In contrast, when imposing an indeterminate sentence, a sentencing court ordinarily articulates either a minimum term and maximum term or a range of time for which a defendant is to be incarcerated. In Nebraska, the fact that the minimum term and maximum term of a sentence are the same does not affect the sentence’s status as an indeterminate sentence.” 25 Starks’ sentences for the Class IV felonies were determinate because they each consisted of a single term of 2 years’ imprisonment. The district court did not list a range of terms or minimum and maximum terms. For each Class IV felony, only a single period of incarceration—2 years—was ordered. Accordingly, the State contends that the district court’s formulation of Starks’ sentences was plain error under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204 (Reissue 2016) and § 29-2204.02. Under § 29-2204, the general rule is that the sentence for most felonies—except Class III, Class IIIA, and Class IV felonies— should be indeterminate. In complement, § 29-2204.02(4) then provides an indeterminacy requirement for some Class III, Class IIIA, and Class IV felony sentences: For any sentence of imprisonment for a Class III, IIIA, or IV felony for an offense committed on or after 25 State v. Thompson, 301 Neb. 472, 483, 919 N.W.2d 122, 130 (2018) (quoting State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 172, 893 N.W.2d 421 (2017), modified on denial of rehearing 296 Neb. 606, 894 N.W.2d 349). - 536 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 308 Neb. 527 August 30, 2015, imposed consecutively or concurrently with . . . a sentence of imprisonment for a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, or IIA felony, the court shall impose an indeterminate sentence within the applicable range in section 28-105 that does not include a period of post-release supervision, in accordance with the process set forth in section 29-2204. (Emphasis supplied.) For purposes of this indeterminacy requirement, it matters not when the underlying offenses occurred in relation to each other or that some of the relevant charges were brought via different charging documents. Section 29-2204.02(4) is broad enough that it theoretically could be read to impose an indeterminacy requirement upon a Class III, Class IIIA, or Class IV felony sentence imposed consecutively or concurrently with a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, or IIA felony sentence that is already in progress. What matters under § 29-2204.02(4) is that the sentences for those offenses are “imposed consecutively or concurrently” to each other. On our de novo review, we agree with the State. Because Starks’ Class IIA and Class IV felony sentences were imposed consecutively, § 29-2204.02(4) required that the Class IV felony sentences be formulated as “indeterminate sentence[s].” Yet, Starks was sentenced to determinate terms of 2 years’ imprisonment. These sentences violated § 29-2204.02(4). [16,17] The failure to impose an indeterminate sentence when required to do so by statute constitutes plain error. 26 An appellate court has the power on direct appeal to remand a cause for the imposition of a lawful sentence where an erroneous one has been pronounced. 27 We therefore find that Starks’ three sentences for Class IV felonies were plain error, 26 See, Galvan, supra note 10; Guzman, supra note 8. 27 Guzman, supra note 8. See State v. Valdez, 305 Neb. 441, 940 N.W.2d 840 (2020). - 537 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STARKS Cite as 308 Neb. 527 and we vacate those sentences and remand the cause to the district court for resentencing.