Court Opinion

ID: 9945165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 15:07:25.228947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:24.281879
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

              MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                       (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                                    STATE V. MATHIASEN

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

                               STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
                                              V.

                             AUSTIN L. MATHIASEN, APPELLANT.

                          Filed February 27, 2024.   No. A-22-913.

       Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: JEFFREY J. LUX, Judge. Affirmed.
       Gregory A. Pivovar for appellant.
       Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and P. Christian Adamski for appellee.

       PIRTLE, Chief Judge, and MOORE and BISHOP, Judges.
       BISHOP, Judge.
                                     I. INTRODUCTION
       Following a jury trial in the Douglas County District Court, Austin L. Mathiasen was
convicted of first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 40 to 45 years’ imprisonment. He
was also subject to lifetime registration under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act
(SORA), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et seq. (Reissue 2016). Mathiasen appeals his conviction and
sentence, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, his sentence was
excessive, and his sentence constituted a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. We affirm.
                                     II. BACKGROUND
                                  1. CHARGING DOCUMENTS
       On August 24, 2021, the State filed a complaint in the county court of Douglas County
charging Mathiasen with one count of first degree sexual assault pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.

                                             -1-
§ 28-319(1)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2022), a Class II felony. The case was bound over to the district court
and the State filed an information charging Mathiasen as set forth in the initial complaint. On May
24, 2022, the State filed an amended information, correcting the date of the offense, but
maintaining the original charge.
                                              2. TRIAL
        Trial was held over 4 days in 2022: August 31, September 1, 2, and 6. Testimony was heard
from law enforcement officers, a sexual assault nurse examiner, a forensic technician, a DNA
analyst, the victim C.S., another resident from C.S.’ apartment building, and Mathiasen. Numerous
exhibits were received into evidence, including photographs, surveillance footage, a sexual assault
evidence collection kit, and a DNA analysis report. Since Mathiasen acknowledged in his own
testimony that he had sexual intercourse with C.S., which he claimed was consensual, we primarily
set forth the evidence relevant to Mathiasen’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to find him
guilty of first degree sexual assault.
                                        (a) C.S.’ Testimony
        C.S. testified that on July 25, 2020, she had been living in an apartment on her own for “six
and a half, seven months.” She had been asleep but woke up because “there was no air conditioning
in the apartment building” and it was particularly hot that night, “so [she] went down to get some
fresh air.” She went to the courtyard at the front of the building at about 2:50 a.m. Norman Gamble,
a fellow resident and the “keeper for the building,” was outside and they engaged in conversation.
An individual, who she later identified as Mathiasen, approached them and asked Gamble if he
could use the restroom. Gamble declined to let Mathiasen into the apartment because “he didn’t
feel like going upstairs at the time.” While Mathiasen and Gamble were speaking, C.S. decided to
go back inside. As she was walking towards the building, Mathiasen asked her if he could use her
bathroom. C.S. initially declined, telling him, “I don’t know you like that.” Gamble then “chimed
in and said, ‘He’s cool,’ to let him use the bathroom.” C.S. allowed Mathiasen into the building
with her. On cross-examination, C.S. acknowledged that there were bathrooms in the lobby of the
building, but stated they were locked at night.
        When C.S. and Mathiasen entered her apartment, she directed him to the bathroom, which
was connected to her bedroom. While Mathiasen was using the restroom, she laid on her bed
because she was experiencing back pain related to a history of numerous back surgeries. She was
lying on her stomach when she heard Mathiasen exit the bathroom. She did not see him because
she was lying with her head down in her arms. Within a couple seconds, Mathiasen jumped on her,
straddling her lower back. Mathiasen held her shoulders down with his hands, preventing her from
getting up. She attempted to push herself up, but Mathiasen then held her arms down at her side,
making it more difficult for her to resist.
        C.S. pleaded with Mathiasen to get off her, but he did not stop and instead began pulling
her shorts down. She resisted his efforts by holding on to her shorts, but Mathiasen was eventually
able to bring them down to her knees. Mathiasen was not able to remove her underwear, so he
pulled them to the side and inserted his penis in her anus and began “thrusting in and out.” C.S.
began screaming and pleaded for him to stop. She described the penetration as “[e]xtremely

                                                -2-
painful” and that it “felt like [her] insides were just ripping.” As Mathiasen penetrated her anus,
he said “very derogatory things” to her.
         C.S. said that she “blacked out” while Mathiasen was anally penetrating her. When she
regained consciousness, Mathiasen was vaginally penetrating her. She told him that she was in
pain and was “crying and pleading for him to stop,” but “[h]e just kept on.” Eventually, he told her
that “he was done and got off [her] and then went into the bathroom.” When he removed himself
from her, C.S. “was numb” and “couldn’t move.” She stayed in her bed because she was “too
scared to move.” Mathiasen put on his clothing and threatened that “if [she] called the police . . .
he would kill [her].” He then left the apartment.
         C.S. then pulled her shorts up and went to her door. Through the peephole in her door, she
observed Mathiasen enter the elevator. She then “came out and went to the window and saw him
walk out of the front of the building” and enter his vehicle. C.S. then reentered her apartment. She
felt “dirty and nasty, so [she] took off [her] clothes and got in the shower.” While showering, she
saw blood in the water and realized her anus was bleeding. After showering, she put on clean
clothes and returned to her bed and cried because she was scared and “didn’t know what to do.”
When asked if the incident began as a consensual sexual encounter, C.S. responded, “No, not at
all.” On cross-examination, C.S. estimated that Mathiasen was in her apartment for “[t]hree and a
half to four hours.” She stated that the assault began immediately. When asked “what happened
the other three [to] four hours,” she responded that she was sexually assaulted the entire time and
that she did not know how long she had lost consciousness.
         C.S. stayed in bed and cried that day. On cross-examination, C.S. could not recall what she
did during the afternoon on the day of the assault. She did not attempt to contact or speak with
anyone until her neighbor invited her over that evening for a meal. When C.S. went to her
neighbor’s apartment, she confided in her neighbor about the sexual assault. C.S. called 911 after
her neighbor urged her to report the incident. Law enforcement officers arrived that night and
spoke with C.S. and Gamble, had a crime lab technician collect photographs and other evidence
from C.S.’ apartment, and advised C.S. to go to the hospital. After going to the hospital, C.S. went
to a domestic violence shelter and only returned to her apartment once, with a police escort, to
retrieve her belongings. She stayed at the shelter for 3 weeks, until she found a new place to live.
                              (b) Norman Gamble, Sr.’s Testimony
        Norman Gamble, Sr., testified that he was the “key keeper” for the apartment building.
Among other duties, he would unlock the bathrooms in the morning because they were locked at
10 p.m. He remembered being outside talking with C.S. on the morning of July 25, 2020, when
Mathiasen approached them. He knew Mathiasen because Mathiasen had a “female friend that
lived there” and “he stayed there sometimes,” however, Gamble only knew him as “Savage” at
that time. Gamble confirmed that Mathiasen first asked him if he could use his restroom, and when
Gamble told Mathiasen he was not going back in the building at that time, Mathiasen asked C.S.
When C.S. responded, “‘I don’t know you like that,’” Mathiasen asked Gamble to “[t]ell her . . .
I’m cool.” Gamble said, “‘Well, yeah. He’s cool. He used to live here,’” meaning “he’d be in and
out of the building” and had friends there. Gamble then saw C.S. and Mathiasen enter the building.
Gamble moved out of the apartment building in April 2021 because he did not “feel it was safe

                                               -3-
enough for [him] to live in”; that it was common to hear yelling and screaming and that it was so
common that sometimes people ignored that type of behavior.
        On cross-examination, when asked about the soundproofing in the apartments and whether
it was “easy to hear what was going on in the next apartment,” Gamble responded affirmatively.
When asked “if there was screaming going on, you’d hear it,” he responded, “You’d hear it.”
                                  (c) Anne Boatright’s Testimony
        Anne Boatright testified that she was a sexual assault nurse examiner and that she
completed a sexual assault evidence collection kit for C.S. at the hospital on July 25, 2020. In
accordance with standard procedure, Boatright photographed the injuries C.S. sustained from the
assault. The photographs were received into evidence. Boatright said that there were many
significant tears on C.S.’ anus. Boatright documented thirteen large tears but stated that there were
“so many micro-tears that [she] couldn’t count all of them.” Photographs of C.S.’ vagina also
showed “diffuse redness.” According to Boatright, C.S.’ injuries were “consistent with forcible
penetration,” and loss of consciousness related to pain during a sexual assault “happen[s] kind of
frequently.” She stated that “[w]hen someone experiences painful sexual assault, they can
disassociate, because parts of their brain shut off related to the trauma.” Boatright stated that C.S.
did not indicate she had experienced memory loss “related to drug-facilitated sexual assault.”
                                 (d) Law Enforcement Testimony
                                    (i) Detective Shannon Knuth
        Detective Shannon Knuth worked for the Adult Sexual Assault Unit at the Omaha Police
Department. Detective Knuth interviewed C.S. in September 2020 for “approximately 33
minutes.” The detective described C.S. as “very emotional,” but she was cooperative and described
“everything that did occur that day.” The interview was “audio-video recorded.” At that time, they
did not have a name for a “suspect” or “person of interest.” However, because they had “video of
the suspect entering and exiting [C.S.’] apartment, which gave [them] a very good still
photograph,” they were able to complete a bulletin that was then disseminated to law enforcement
in the surrounding area to see if anyone recognized the person. Exhibits 41 and 42 are copies of
the “stills” taken from the video surveillance that were used in the bulletin. It was not until April
2021 that a crime analysis team identified Mathiasen as a possible suspect based off a video from
an unrelated case. At that point, a “photo lineup” was created, which included a photo of Mathiasen
and five “random other individuals.” Another detective with no knowledge of the case then
presented the photo lineup to C.S. and she recognized Mathiasen. Detective Knuth created a
“locate,” which contained a photograph and some information, including a brief description of
why law enforcement was interested in speaking to that person.
        Detective Knuth subsequently had contact with Mathiasen at the police station in August
2021. The detective informed Mathiasen that they were investigating a sexual assault and asked
him to consent to a buccal swab to compare with DNA in the sexual assault kit. Mathiasen refused
consent at that time, but asked if he could do that in front of his parents. The detective obtained a
telephone number and address from Mathiasen and arranged to meet him the next day at his
parents’ house at 1 p.m. Detective Knuth also sought a buccal swab warrant to “take his DNA.”

                                                -4-
        When the detective called Mathiasen the next morning to confirm their meeting, it was
discovered that the phone number provided by Mathiasen was not a valid number. Mathiasen was
not at the arranged meeting place when Detective Knuth and another detective arrived “just shy”
of 1 p.m. Detective Knuth recalled having a “pretty lengthy conversation” with Mathiasen’s
parents, and as the detectives were leaving the neighborhood, maybe “15, 20 minutes later,”
Mathiasen pulled into the parking lot. Detective Knuth pulled in behind Mathiasen’s vehicle and
observed that “he was a bit surprised that I showed up.” When asked to consent to the buccal swab,
Mathiasen refused and attempted to go inside the residence. Detective Knuth advised Mathiasen
there was a “warrant for his DNA,” at which point Mathiasen asked “to go into the residence in
order to do that.” The buccal swabs were packaged and taken to a “UNMC lab technician.”
                                   (ii) Lieutenant Tara Ackerson
        Lieutenant Tara Ackerson worked in the Special Victims Unit at the Omaha Police
Department. In the summer of 2020, she was a sergeant with the Adult Sexual Assault Unit. She
was involved in obtaining video surveillance from the apartment building where C.S. lived,
specifically the apartment lobby and the floor where C.S.’ apartment was located. Exhibit 44
contained six short video clips with different angles showing C.S. and Mathiasen on July 25, 2020,
in the apartment lobby (3:18 a.m.) and then entering C.S.’ apartment (3:19 a.m.), and Mathiasen
leaving C.S.’ apartment (6:44 a.m.).
        On cross-examination, Lieutenant Ackerson acknowledged observing C.S. on a lengthier
version of the video leaving her apartment and getting on the elevator 11 minutes after Mathiasen
left. The lieutenant did not have the video of the apartment lobby for that time in the morning, so
she was unable to know whether either Mathiasen or C.S. left the building.
                                    (e) Mathiasen’s Testimony
        Mathiasen testified regarding the events of July 25, 2020. He was familiar with C.S.’
apartment building because he had been “in and out” of the building since 2017. He was driving
his vehicle near C.S.’ apartment building after leaving a friend’s house at 3 a.m. and saw “a handful
of people” in front of the building. Mathiasen parked his vehicle and spoke to some friends in the
parking lot. He then walked from the parking lot to the courtyard where Gamble and C.S. were
talking. Mathiasen asked Gamble to allow him to use the restroom in the building, but Gamble
declined since he was not going back in the building. However, Gamble indicated that Mathiasen
could use C.S.’ bathroom. C.S. said “whatever” and rolled her eyes. She then smiled and they
entered the building together. They engaged in friendly conversation while riding the elevator to
C.S.’ floor.
        When they entered C.S.’ apartment, Mathiasen used the restroom. When he exited the
bathroom, he observed C.S. on her bed, sitting up with pillows behind her back. He claimed that
she was not on her stomach. C.S. was watching a television show and indicated that Mathiasen
could join her on the bed. C.S. then went to the bathroom for a few minutes and when she returned,
he “could tell she put on some perfume type, smell good type.” She returned to the bed and they
had a discussion regarding television and movies. They began “playing footsie” and he rested his
hand on her thigh. C.S. “moaned a little bit” and he began touching her breasts. She then touched

                                                -5-
his penis through his clothing. At this point, he had been in her apartment for “about 40, 45
minutes.”
        Mathiasen then requested oral sex, which she declined to give him. He then asked C.S. to
turn around and asked her to pull her shorts down. Since “[s]he couldn’t pull them all the way
down,” Mathiasen “helped her.” He took off most of his clothing, leaving on only his undershirt
and socks. He said he vaginally penetrated C.S. for “about ten minutes,” and also placed his thumb
in C.S.’ anus. When he subsequently asked her if he could penetrate her anally, she did not respond.
He then began penetrating her anally for “three to five minutes” until he reached completion. He
claimed that as he penetrated her, she “was panting with her mouth open” out of pleasure. He
stated that the sexual intercourse took place for no longer than 20 minutes. Mathiasen testified that
C.S. did not “say no” or tell him to stop at any point during the sexual encounter. When asked if
the encounter “was a voluntary coupling between the two of [them],” he responded, “That is
correct.”
        After cleaning his genitals in the bathroom, Mathiasen proceeded to put his clothing back
on. On cross-examination, Mathiasen stated that there was “no blood on [him]” and “no blood
stains on the bed.” C.S. indicated to him she had not previously had anal sex before, nor had she
previously engaged in sexual intercourse “with a person she just met on the first day.” He told her
that they could “keep this going on if she like[d].” At this point, he had been in the apartment for
“roughly between an hour to an hour and a half.” When asked what they did “for the other two
hours,” Mathiasen responded that they “[p]lopped back on the bed.” He pulled her close to him
and she laid her head on his chest. She asked him if he was in a relationship, and he informed her
that he was not. She then asked him, “What do you think about us?” Mathiasen stated that “[r]ed
flags started going off in [his] head immediately . . . but [he] told her yeah anyway.” In an attempt
to “get out of there without being rude,” he told her that he was going to pick up food but that he
would “be right back.”
        On cross-examination, Mathiasen remembered being interviewed by Detective Knuth on
August 11, 2021, and that she informed him that she was investigating a sexual assault that took
place at C.S.’ apartment building on the 12th floor. She further told him the name of the accuser
and that the allegations were that he asked to use C.S.’ restroom, another resident vouched for him
to convince C.S. to allow him to use her restroom, and that C.S. did not know him prior to the
night of the alleged assault. He testified that even after being given this information during the
interview, he did not know at that time what the detective was talking about.
        On redirect, Mathiasen explained that he provided an incorrect telephone number to
Detective Knuth because it was a new phone, but he “did give her the real address.”
                                   (f) Jury Verdict and Sentence
         After deliberation, the jury found Mathiasen guilty of first degree sexual assault and the
district court entered judgment on the verdict. At a sentencing hearing held on November 7, 2022,
the court sentenced Mathiasen to 40 to 45 years’ imprisonment with 442 days’ credit for time
served. The court also found that Mathiasen was subject to lifetime registration under SORA “in
that [Mathiasen] ha[d] a prior sex offense conviction which requires a lifetime registration.” A
written sentencing order was entered that same day.

                                                -6-
                                 III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
        Mathiasen assigns that (1) the district court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict and
that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, (2) the court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence, and (3) the court imposed an unconstitutionally excessive
sentence.
                                  IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
       Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and
regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the
evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal
conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of
witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be
affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed
most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Cerros, 312 Neb. 230,
978 N.W.2d 162 (2022); State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022).
       An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an
abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289, 940 N.W.2d 529 (2020).
       Whether a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment presents a question of law. State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557, 900 N.W.2d 757 (2017).
When reviewing a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the
lower court’s ruling. Id.
                                           V. ANALYSIS
                      1. DIRECTED VERDICT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
        At trial, Mathiasen motioned for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case in chief.
The district court overruled Mathiasen’s motion and the defense proceeded to call Mathiasen as a
witness. On appeal, Mathiasen assigns that “the trial court erred when it failed to grant a directed
verdict and there was insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict as to the charges.” Brief for
appellant at 5. A defendant who moves for dismissal or a directed verdict at the close of the
evidence in the State’s case in chief in a criminal prosecution and who, when the court overrules
the dismissal or directed verdict motion, proceeds with trial and introduces evidence, waives the
appellate right to challenge correctness in the trial court’s overruling the motion for dismissal or a
directed verdict but may still challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Guzman, 305 Neb.
376, 940 N.W.2d 552 (2020). We therefore address Mathiasen’s assigned error as a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence.
        Section 28-319(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of first degree sexual assault
if they “subject[] another person to sexual penetration . . . without the consent of the victim.” It is
undisputed that Mathiasen sexually penetrated C.S. Thus, the remaining question is whether a
rational fact finder could have determined that the sexual penetration took place without the
consent of C.S.
        At trial, C.S. testified that the sexual penetration was not consensual. She said that
Mathiasen jumped on her back and held her down as he removed her shorts and began anally

                                                 -7-
penetrating her, and that the penetration was extremely painful. She unsuccessfully resisted
Mathiasen’s efforts and cried, screamed, and pleaded for him to stop. As Mathiasen anally
penetrated her, she lost consciousness. Boatright, a sexual assault nurse examiner explained that
“[w]hen someone experiences painful sexual assault, they can disassociate, because parts of their
brain shut off related to the trauma.” When C.S. regained consciousness, Mathiasen was vaginally
penetrating her. She cried and pled for him to stop, but “[h]e just kept on.” According to C.S.,
before Mathiasen left, he threatened to kill her if she contacted law enforcement.
         C.S. had significant injuries as a result of the anal penetration. Those injuries were
documented by Boatright. Photographs received into evidence showed redness, blood clots, and
tearing on C.S.’ anus. Boatright stated that C.S. had thirteen large tears on her anus and that there
were “so many micro-tears that [she] couldn’t count all of them.” According to Boatright, C.S.’
injuries were “consistent with forcible penetration.” C.S. further testified that, following the
incident, she stayed at a domestic violence shelter until she found a new place to live and that she
only returned to the apartment once with a police escort to collect her belongings.
         A rational fact finder could have concluded from this evidence that the sexual penetration
was not consensual.
         Mathiasen contends, however, that “the evidence was so incredulous that no jury should
have been able to find [him] guilty.” Brief for appellant at 10. He dissects C.S.’ version of events,
noting that Gamble knew Mathiasen and if something untoward happened, he would be able to
identify Mathiasen as the perpetrator. He further notes that he was seen looking towards the
cameras in the surveillance footage and that he made no effort to conceal his identity. He asserts
that “[i]f he was planning something illegal,” he would have “had a hoodie on” and attempted to
conceal his identity. Id. at 15. He also questions C.S.’ timeline of events and her testimony that the
assault took place over the course of 3 hours. He points out that she “decide[d] that she must have
passed out, a fact which she conveniently fail[ed] to mention to the person doing her sexual assault
evaluation.” Id. at 16.
         He further suggests that C.S.’ testimony that she was lying down on her bed while
Mathiasen was using the bathroom does not “comport with any idea of how someone would act
when letting someone use their bathroom at 3:00 in the morning.” Id. He also points to C.S.’
testimony that she watched through the window in the hall as Mathiasen left, which he claims
contradicts the testimony of Lieutenant Ackerson who described the surveillance footage showing
C.S. leaving her apartment 11 minutes after Mathiasen left. Mathiasen further challenges that C.S.
could not remember what she did for the rest of the day, aside from taking a shower and having a
meal with a neighbor, who was “strangely absent from the trial despite being subpoenaed.” Id. at
17. Mathiasen claims that he and C.S. had consensual sexual intercourse and that the “acts were
regretted by both parties.” Id. He claims he led C.S. to believe they might have a relationship in
the future and C.S. decided that Mathiasen “would pay for his lack of honor” with a sentence of
40 to 45 years’ imprisonment. Id.
         While we acknowledge that Mathiasen testified to a version of events which conflicted
with C.S.’ version, it is not the role of this court to reweigh the evidence or otherwise make
determinations regarding witness credibility. See State v. Cerros, supra. It is the role of the fact
finder to make such determinations, and in this case the jury, as the fact finder, subscribed to the
version of events presented by the State.

                                                -8-
                                      2. EXCESSIVE SENTENCE
        Mathiasen claims the district court abused its discretion when it imposed an excessive
sentence. Mathiasen was convicted of first degree sexual assault, a Class II felony. A Class II
felony is punishable by a minimum of 1 year of imprisonment and up to a maximum of 50 years’
imprisonment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Cum. Supp. 2022). The court sentenced Mathiasen
to 40 to 45 years’ imprisonment. Mathiasen’s sentence is within the statutory range; as such, we
review the court’s sentencing determination only for an abuse of discretion.
        When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should 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.
State v. Lierman, supra. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment
and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all
the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. Id.
        Mathiasen was 34 years old at the time of sentencing. According to the presentence
investigation report (PSR), Mathiasen was single and had two living children. He graduated from
high school and completed some college courses. He was unemployed prior to his incarceration.
        Mathiasen’s adult criminal history dating back to 2006 includes a conviction for first
degree sexual assault of a minor. At the time of that offense, he was 19 years old and impregnated
a 12-year-old child. Mathiasen had a couple convictions for SORA violations, as well as
convictions for burglary, domestic assault, a protection order violation, and more. A “Sex Offender
Risk Intervention and Progress Scale” assessment showed that Mathiasen was at a high risk for
reoffending.
        According to the PSR, Mathiasen reported to the probation officer that he had a history of
depression, anxiety, and drug use and had been previously diagnosed with ADHD and OCD. He
had various traumatic experiences in his youth, including the loss of family members, physical
abuse, and sexual abuse. He stated that he had “sexual issues from the abuse” and that he suffered
from nightmares and suicidal ideation. On more than one occasion, he had “given into impulsive
behaviors and aggression” resulting “in harm to others or destruction of property.” He felt “people
have something against him.”
        The PSR included a statement by Mathiasen. When the probation officer asked Mathiasen
why he was there at the end of the interview, he stated, “They are trying to portray me as a
monster.” In his statement, Mathiasen insisted that he was innocent and reiterated the version of
events he described at trial. He further stated that he believed C.S. “was caught in a bunch of lies.”
He stated that she testified she yelled and screamed, but “they were on one floor with 13
apartments,” which meant that “if she had been screaming for help[,] someone would have heard
her.” He stated that he had “been going in and out” of C.S.’ apartment building since 2007 and
was aware the building’s cameras were operational. He questioned why he would “commit a crime
just to be caught on the cameras.” He believed he “got played through all of this” and that “his
attorney didn’t know anything.”
        The PSR also included a victim impact statement, wherein C.S. stated that Mathiasen’s
crime had a significant impact on her. She stated that she would “never be the same person [she]

                                                -9-
was before” and that she now has “a lot of anxiety when it comes to being around men in general.”
She no longer had “the same kind of relationships with [her] male friends as [she] use[d] to” and
felt the need to “continually watch [her] back when [she was] out alone.” She had been seeing a
counselor for the psychological impact of the crime and saw multiple doctors to address its
physical impact. She urged the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for “the maximum
amount of time because [Mathiasen had] already done this crime to someone else and he chose to
do it again to [her].” She did not want anyone else to experience what she had gone through.
         The district court stated that it had received a letter from Mathiasen “a day or two after the
trial,” when, according to the court, Mathiasen was not “in the best of moods.” The court noted
that Mathiasen’s letter asked the court for the death penalty. The court asked Mathiasen if he knew
that was not an option in “this kind of case,” to which Mathiasen replied, “I do now.” The court
asked if Mathiasen really wanted the death penalty, and Mathiasen responded that he did. The
court questioned defense counsel on whether Mathiasen was competent to move forward with
sentencing, and after further discussion between the court, the attorneys, and Mathiasen, the court
concluded they could proceed to sentencing.
         Mathiasen’s counsel noted that Mathiasen had maintained his innocence during the entirety
of the proceedings and that it would not be fair to hold that against him following his conviction.
He informed the court that Mathiasen “would be hoping that the Court would consider something
on the lower end . . . eight to ten years” for his sentence.
         Mathiasen personally informed the district court he was “innocent,” that he did not rape
C.S., that he did not force himself on C.S., and that he “never threatened her.” He stated that he
“in no way, shape or form” hurt C.S., and that he did not know why she was “doing this.” He said
that “[i]t’s just been a snowball effect.” He stated that “[j]ustice [wa]sn’t being served” and that
the district court would be “taking [him] away from [his] kids” and it “just hurts.”
         The State informed the district court that it did not “begrudge or have any opinion
regarding . . . Mathiasen maintaining that he’s innocent,” nor was it asking that the court “punish
him additionally because he h[eld] that view.” The State requested that Mathiasen be held
“accountable for what the facts were on this case and what the jury finding was in th[e] case,”
which was that he was guilty of first degree sexual assault. The State noted that Mathiasen had
previously been convicted of a sex offense and had a history of failing to comply with SORA. The
State characterized Mathiasen as “a danger to society” and urged the court to sentence him to “a
lengthy term of incarceration.”
         The district court stated that it had reviewed the contents of the PSR, Mathiasen’s
statement, and the parties’ arguments and considered the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-2260 (Reissue 2016), as well as Mathiasen’s “age, mentality, education and experience, social
and cultural background, past criminal record and record of law-abiding conduct, the motivation
for the offense, the nature of the offense and the amount, if any, of violence involved in the
commission of the offense.” The court found that the crime Mathiasen was convicted of was a
registrable offense under SORA. The court further stated that it understood Mathiasen was
“pushing [his] version of events” but that the case “was tried to a jury,” who, as the finder of fact,
found Mathiasen to be guilty. The court stated that it must determine his sentence based on the
version of facts which the jury found. The court noted that Mathiasen had a prior conviction for a
sex offense and found that “a sentence of probation would not be appropriate,” and “would

                                                - 10 -
depreciate the seriousness of the offense and would promote disrespect for the law.” The court
then sentenced Mathiasen as previously set forth.
        In his brief on appeal, Mathiasen argues that the district court abused its discretion by
“ignor[ing] th[e] law in imposing an excessive sentence.” Brief for appellant at 19. He highlights
that the PSR “paints a picture of a man who has been dealt a bad hand in life,” had “[l]earning
disabilities,” and suffered “physical abuse[] and sexual abuse as a child.” Id. He further points out
that he had been the victim of a violent crime, struggled with substance abuse, and suffered from
suicidal ideation. He argues that although his crime was serious, “the nearly maximum sentence
d[id] not fit th[e] offender.” Id. at 20.
        Since the appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes
the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life, a sentencing court is accorded very wide discretion
in imposing a sentence. See State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017). To the extent
Mathiasen argues that the district court did not adequately consider certain mitigating factors, we
note that it is evident that the court had before it all the information that Mathiasen suggests should
have resulted in a lesser sentence. However, it was within the sentencing court’s discretion to
weigh more heavily the factors supporting a lengthier sentence, such as the seriousness of the
offense and Mathiasen’s history of similar criminal activity. We therefore cannot say the court
abused its discretion in determining the sentence imposed.
                                  3. UNCONSTITUTIONAL SENTENCE
        Mathiasen further claims that the district court imposed a sentence which constituted a
violation of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Mathiasen cites
to case law related to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and claims that “the
punishment imposed [was] disproportionate to the crime and [his] status.” Brief for appellant at
21. He argues that he was “unfairly prejudiced by the inflammatory nature of the charges
themselves and the Court did not impose a sentence consistent with the facts surrounding the case,
and consistent with [Mathiasen]’s health, age, lack of criminal history, his possibility of
recidivism[,] and his ability to be rehabilitated.” Id. Further, he claims that “[i]t is more likely that
incarceration will harden him as a criminal rather than rehabilitat[e] [him].” Id.
        The Eighth Amendment prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that
are disproportionate to the crime committed. State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557, 900 N.W.2d 757 (2017).
The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized this as a “narrow proportionality principle” which does
not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence, but, rather, forbids only extreme
sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 123
S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108 (2003) (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S. Ct.
2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1991)). See, also, Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 77, 123 S. Ct. 1166,
155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003) (“[t]he gross disproportionality principle reserves a constitutional
violation for only the extraordinary case”).
        Whether a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment presents a question of law. State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94, 892 N.W.2d 81 (2017). When
reviewing a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower
court’s ruling. Id.

                                                 - 11 -
        As we previously discussed, Mathiasen’s sentence was within the statutory limits for a
Class II felony. See § 28-105 (maximum of 50 years’ imprisonment for a Class II felony). An
Eighth Amendment analysis generally respects legislative determinations of statutory sentencing
limits. See State v. Loschen, 221 Neb. 315, 376 N.W.2d 792 (1985) (stating sentence of
imprisonment within limits of valid statute ordinarily not cruel and unusual punishment in
constitutional sense). For reasons already stated in response to Mathiasen’s claim that his sentence
is excessive, we conclude that his sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the crime and
therefore does not violate his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.
                                       VI. CONCLUSION
      For the reasons set forth above, we affirm Mathiasen’s conviction and the sentence
imposed by the district court.
                                                                              AFFIRMED.

                                               - 12 -