Court Opinion

ID: 9399196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:07:33.330956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.970223
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
06/02/2023 09:07 AM CDT

                                                         - 419 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                                                  STATE V. RAMIREZ
                                                  Cite as 314 Neb. 419

                                        State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
                                         Eric A. Ramirez, appellant.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                           Filed June 2, 2023.     No. S-22-568.

                 1. Appeal and Error. Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion
                    of an appellate court.
                 2. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
                    tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion
                    by the trial court.
                 3. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists
                    only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable,
                    unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just
                    result in matters submitted for disposition.
                 4. Sentences: Due Process: Appeal and Error. Whether the district
                    court’s resentencing of a defendant following a successful appeal vio-
                    lates the defendant’s due process rights presents a question of law.
                 5. Constitutional Law: Sentences. Whether a sentence constitutes cruel
                    and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment presents
                    a question of law.
                 6. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On questions of law, an appellate court
                    is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination
                    reached by the court below.
                 7. 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 a sentencing court abused its discretion in con-
                    sidering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable legal
                    principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.
                 8. Sentences. In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant factors
                    customarily considered and applied are the defendant’s (1) age, (2)
                    mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural back-
                    ground, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct,
                    and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the
                                   - 420 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. RAMIREZ
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 419

    offense and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of
    the crime.
 9. ____. Where a defendant was under the age of 18 when he or she
    committed a Class IA felony, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (Reissue
    2016) dictates that the sentencing judge must also consider mitigating
    factors, such as the defendant’s (1) age at the time of the offense, (2)
    impetuosity, (3) family and community environment, and (4) ability to
    appreciate risks and consequences of the conduct, as well as (5) the
    outcome of a comprehensive mental health evaluation of the defend­
    ant conducted by an adolescent mental health professional licensed
    in Nebraska.
10. ____. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judg-
    ment 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.

   Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Peter
C. Bataillon, Judge. Affirmed.
  Donald L. Schense, of Law Office of Donald L. Schense, for
appellant.
  Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Melissa R.
Vincent for appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
and Papik, JJ., and Lee, District Judge.
    Cassel, J.
                     INTRODUCTION
   In 2008, when Eric A. Ramirez was 17 years old, he com-
mitted eight felony crimes, including two first degree mur-
ders and an attempted second degree murder. In 2014, we
affirmed his convictions but vacated all of his sentences,
and remanded the cause for resentencing. 1 The resentencing
was dictated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, 2 legislation
1
    See State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356, 842 N.W.2d 694 (2014).
2
    See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407
    (2012).
                                    - 421 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. RAMIREZ
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 419

responding to it, 3 and a mandatory consecutive sentenc-
ing statute. 4
   Ramirez now appeals his resentencing, asserting that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive
sentence that amounted to a “de facto life sentence.” Because
we disagree, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
                             Crimes
   The facts and circumstances surrounding Ramirez’ crimes
are set out in greater detail in our decision resolving his first
direct appeal. 5 On the night of November 12, 2008, when
Ramirez was 17 years old, he was involved in three shootings
that occurred at three separate locations in Omaha, Nebraska,
within an hour of each other. The shootings resulted in the
deaths of two people and injury to a third person. The State
arrested Ramirez, Edgar Cervantes, and Juan E. Castaneda for
the crimes. Cervantes later testified against Ramirez pursuant
to a plea agreement and attested that it was Ramirez who had
shot the three victims.
                Convictions and Sentences
   In 2010, a jury convicted Ramirez of two counts of
first degree murder, each a Class IA felony 6; one count of
attempted second degree murder, a Class II felony 7; one
count of attempted robbery, a Class III felony 8; three counts
of use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, each
3
    See, 2013 Neb. Laws, L.B. 44; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (Reissue 2016)
    (post-Miller penalty provisions for Class IA felonies committed by persons
    under 18 years of age).
4
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205(3) (Reissue 2016) (sentences for weapon
    convictions to run consecutively with all other sentences).
5
    See State v. Ramirez, supra note 1.
6
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303 (Reissue 2008).
7
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-201 (Reissue 2008) and 28-304 (Reissue 2016).
8
    See § 28-201 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324 (Reissue 2016).
                                    - 422 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. RAMIREZ
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 419

a Class II felony 9; and one count of criminal conspiracy, a
Class II felony. 10
   The court sentenced Ramirez to mandatory life imprison-
ment for each first degree murder conviction, to 12 to 20
years’ imprisonment for the attempted second degree murder
conviction, and to 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment for each
remaining conviction. The sentences for the weapon convic-
tions were to run consecutively only to the sentence for the
underlying felony conviction. All other sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.
                         Direct Appeal
   On direct appeal, we affirmed Ramirez’ convictions but
vacated all of his sentences. 11 While the appeal was pending,
the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 12 holding
that it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile convicted of
a homicide to mandatory life imprisonment without the pos-
sibility of parole. Accordingly, we vacated Ramirez’ mandatory
life sentences for first degree murder. We vacated his other
sentences upon finding the district court committed plain error
by ordering his sentences for the weapon convictions to run
concurrently with each other and with other sentences, instead
of consecutively to all other sentences as required by law. 13 We
remanded the cause for resentencing.
                   Resentencing Evidence
   In 2022, the district court, sitting with a different district
judge, held a hearing on Ramirez’ resentencing. We summarize
the evidence considered by the court in determining the appro-
priate sentences.
 9
     See § 28-1205.
10
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-202 (Reissue 2008).
11
     State v. Ramirez, supra note 1.
12
     Miller v. Alabama, supra note 2.
13
     See § 28-1205(3).
                              - 423 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        STATE V. RAMIREZ
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 419

   At the outset of the hearing, the court acknowledged receipt
of Ramirez’ presentence investigation report (PSR) and numer-
ous letters from the victims’ families. Although the State asked
that the letters be included as part of the PSR, they are not
included in our record. Neither party raises an objection to
their absence.
   The PSR was completed prior to Ramirez’ sentencing in
2010. It included, in part, the following information:
• the police reports of the crimes;
• Ramirez’ age at the time of his crimes;
• Ramirez’ prior criminal history of possession of mari-
  juana and obstructing the administration of the law, as
  well as various untried charges dating back to 2003, and
  a weapon concealment charge from June 2008 with an
  unknown disposition;
• Ramirez’ educational records from seventh to ninth grades,
  which showed disciplinary reports and suspensions for “gang
  related activity” and “gang type of behaviors”;
• Ramirez’ score as a very high risk to reoffend on the “LS/CMI,”
  a risk/needs assessment tool;
• Ramirez’ record of having two misconduct reports during his
  incarceration leading up to sentencing; and
• Ramirez’ probation officer’s recommendation that the trial
  court impose “the maximum straight sentences allowed
  per statute.”
   Particularly relevant to this appeal, the court received as
evidence a report completed by Kirk A.B. Newring, Ph.D., a
psychologist who evaluated Ramirez shortly before his resen-
tencing. In the report, Newring first reviewed the PSR. He
then discussed Ramirez’ initial assessment on November 9,
2020; Ramirez’ clinical interview on December 2, 2021; and
various testing and assessments completed in the course of
his evaluation.
   Newring’s report set forth the following findings: Ramirez
produced an IQ in the average range and demonstrated
                              - 424 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        STATE V. RAMIREZ
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 419

academic abilities consistent with a high school graduate
equivalent; Ramirez likely presented himself in an accurate
manner without attempts to dissimulate testing; Ramirez was
likely to respond to provocation verbally and was likely
to have a higher baseline of emotional arousal; Ramirez
had a high probability of having a substance use disorder;
Ramirez acknowledged a history of antisocial behaviors and
endorsed “indicators of social detachment, distrust or aloof-
ness[,] and some intrusive/anxiety-related concerns”; Ramirez
had elevated scores related to trauma in the areas of “Anxious
Arousal, Insecure Attachment[,] and Impaired Self-Reference”;
Ramirez demonstrated personality traits and behaviors charac-
teristic of “possible psychopathy”; and Ramirez’ risk assess-
ment scores placed him “in the risk bin with the relatively
highest rates of projected reoffense.”
   During the hearing, Ramirez’ counsel argued that many of
these criteria “coincide with the factors that we are to look at
under [§] 28-105.02.” Ramirez’ counsel directed the court to a
specific section of the report that set forth the relevant factors
and then stated:
         Within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty,
      the following summary is offered for . . . Ramirez[:]
         (a) . . . Ramirez was 17 years, 2 months, and 3 days
      old at the time of the offense. He is now aged 30 years,
      3 months.
         (b) . . . Ramirez was certain[l]y an impetuous child
      and adolescent, with school records and juvenile jus-
      tice records reflective of impulsive behavior. He strug-
      gled with distancing himself from gang behavior, and
      continued to show impulsive behaviors earlier in his
      incarceration.
         (c) . . . Ramirez was admittedly gang-affiliated as an
      adolescent, and his PS[R] notes the difficulties he had in
      school when gang problems found him. . . . .
         ....
                                    - 425 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. RAMIREZ
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 419

         (d) . . . Ramirez is better able to appreciate the nature
      and consequences of his conduct now, relative to when he
      was a teenager.
         (e) . . . Ramirez is of average intelligence, and reports
      fluency in English and Spanish.
Ramirez’ counsel contended that the report showed Ramirez
fit “all of the criteria as to an adolescent youth” and requested
resentencing consistent with the sentences imposed upon
Ramirez’ codefendant, Castaneda. 14
    Additionally, the court received evidence showing that
Ramirez had taken steps to improve himself while incarcer-
ated. In 2011, Ramirez obtained a diploma through the GED
program. In 2016, he obtained certificates for completing a
moral recognition therapy program and the “Inside Out Dad”
program. In 2017, he earned a certificate of completion for a
relationship and communication program. And finally, in 2020,
Ramirez obtained two certificates, one for completing an inde-
pendent learning program and the other for completing the
“Set Free Prison Ministries” program.
    At the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, Ramirez
made a personal statement.

                  District Court’s Sentencing
   Prior to imposing Ramirez’ sentences, the district court
stated:
         There’s a number of factors the Court needs to look at
      in making a decision as to what the appropriate sentence
      is in this matter. I understand [Ramirez’] argument that he
      should be treated the same as the other defendants, and
      the Court understands that but the Court does not agree
      with that.
14
     See State v. Castaneda, 295 Neb. 547, 889 N.W.2d 87 (2017) (affirming
     aggregate term of 105 to 125 years’ imprisonment imposed at resentencing
     for identical charges).
                              - 426 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                        STATE V. RAMIREZ
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 419

         In any type of conspiracy or felony murder cases such
      as this, some parties are more — more involved than
      others in what took place, and the Court has to take con-
      sideration of that because each person comes to the Court
      as an individual different than other parties. Sometimes
      it is appropriate, and in this case the Court finds it’s not
      appropriate. However, the Court understands that at the
      time this took place . . . Ramirez was 17 years of age,
      just turned 17, he was 17 years, 2 months, and there’s all
      kinds of scientific evidence as to the mind of a person at
      17 years of age.
Then, “Based upon all of the factors this Court must consider,
based upon the law[,] and weighing all the matters in this mat-
ter,” the court pronounced Ramirez’ sentences.
   The court resentenced Ramirez to 40 to 60 years’ impris-
onment for each first degree murder conviction, to 12 to 20
years’ imprisonment for the attempted second degree murder
conviction, and to 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment for each
remaining conviction. It ordered the sentences to run con-
secutively to each other, except for Ramirez’ sentences for
attempted second degree murder and criminal conspiracy,
which it ordered to run concurrently with all other sentences.
It noted that the total combined sentence was 128 to 180
years’ imprisonment and gave Ramirez credit for 4,972 days
served. It commented: “[T]hese sentences . . . are very dif-
ficult, but the crimes [Ramirez] committed are outrageous.
They’re tragedies.”
   Ramirez filed a timely appeal, which was placed on our
docket because of the prior appeal.

                 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Ramirez assigns, rephrased, that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing (1) an excessive aggregate sentence and
(2) a “de facto life sentence” in violation of his due process
and Eighth Amendment rights.
                                        - 427 -
                  Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                           314 Nebraska Reports
                                  STATE V. RAMIREZ
                                  Cite as 314 Neb. 419

   [1] The State, at oral argument, backed away from its asser-
tion in its brief that the district court committed plain error.
Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an
appellate court. 15 We agree and exercise the discretion to not
address that argument.

                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [2,3] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed
within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the
trial court. 16 A judicial abuse of discretion exists only when
the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable,
unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying
a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 17
   [4-6] Whether the district court’s resentencing of a defend­
ant following a successful appeal violates the defendant’s due
process rights presents a question of law. 18 Similarly, whether
a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in viola-
tion of the Eighth Amendment presents a question of law. 19
On questions of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach
a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the
court below. 20

                         ANALYSIS
               Excessive Aggregate Sentence
   Ramirez first contends that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing an excessive aggregate sentence. He
does not suggest that the court imposed sentences outside
the permissible statutory ranges. Rather, he asserts that the
15
     State   v.   Roth, 311 Neb. 1007, 977 N.W.2d 221 (2022).
16
     State   v.   Hines, 313 Neb. 685, 985 N.W.2d 625 (2023).
17
     State   v.   Ali, 312 Neb. 975, 981 N.W.2d 821 (2022).
18
     State   v.   Castaneda, supra note 14.
19
     State   v.   Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 N.W.2d 505 (2019).
20
     State   v.   Nelson, 313 Neb. 464, 984 N.W.2d 620 (2023).
                                      - 428 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       314 Nebraska Reports
                               STATE V. RAMIREZ
                               Cite as 314 Neb. 419

court abused its discretion in imposing his aggregate sentence
of 128 to 180 years’ imprisonment.
   Before addressing Ramirez’ specific arguments, we restate
his convictions and the sentences imposed upon him at
resentencing:

            Conviction                          Term of Imprisonment
 Count I: First degree murder                   40 to 60 years
 Count II: Use of deadly weapon                 12 to 15 years
 (firearm) to commit felony
 Count III: First degree murder                 40 to 60 years
 Count IV: Use of deadly weapon                 12 to 15 years
 (firearm) to commit felony
 Count V: Attempted second                      12 to 20 years
 degree murder
 Count VI: Attempted robbery                    12 to 15 years
 Count VII: Use of deadly weapon                12 to 15 years
 (firearm) to commit felony
 Count VIII: Criminal conspiracy                12 to 15 years
Ramirez’ aggregate sentence reflects the consecutive terms
of imprisonment imposed for counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII.
Counts V and VIII were ordered to run concurrently with all
other sentences.
   [7] Because it is undisputed that Ramirez’ sentences fall
within the statutory limits, the question is whether the district
court abused its discretion in the sentences it imposed upon
him. Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is
alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must
determine whether a 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. 21

21
     State v. Hines, supra note 16.
                                   - 429 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. RAMIREZ
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 419

   [8,9] In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant fac-
tors customarily considered and applied are 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. 22 Where a
defendant was under the age of 18 when he or she commit-
ted a Class IA felony, § 28-105.02 dictates that the sentenc-
ing judge must also consider mitigating factors, such as the
defendant’s (1) age at the time of the offense, (2) impetuosity,
(3) family and community environment, and (4) ability to
appreciate risks and consequences of the conduct, as well as
(5) the outcome of a comprehensive mental health evaluation
of the defendant conducted by an adolescent mental health
professional licensed in Nebraska. 23
   In the first of Ramirez’ two primary arguments, he asserts
that he received an excessive aggregate sentence because the
district court failed to adequately consider the relevant mitigat-
ing factors. Specifically, he alleges that the court erred in not
giving adequate consideration to his remorse, background, and
family. We are not persuaded.
   There is no evidence that the district court failed to consider
the relevant mitigating factors. The court held a full eviden-
tiary hearing prior to resentencing Ramirez and gave him an
opportunity to present mitigating evidence. The record shows
that the court read and reviewed the evidence Ramirez pre-
sented. Moreover, the court explicitly stated that it weighed
all of the evidence and pronounced Ramirez’ sentences based
upon the relevant factors.
   To the extent Ramirez argues that the court erred in
not making specific factual findings, the State correctly
points out that the court was not required to do so. In State
22
     State v. Estrada Comacho, 309 Neb. 494, 960 N.W.2d 739 (2021).
23
     State v. Thieszen, 300 Neb. 112, 912 N.W.2d 696 (2018).
                                     - 430 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. RAMIREZ
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 419

v. Mantich, 24 we rejected a similar argument made by a juve-
nile offender. We held that there is no language in Miller, nor
anything more generally in our case law or in § 28-105.02,
that would require specific factfinding at sentencing. Our
subsequent cases have adhered to that holding, 25 which is
consistent with our longstanding precedent. 26 And in Jones v.
Mississippi, 27 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a similar argu-
ment. We conclude that this argument lacks merit.
   Ramirez next asserts that the district court tailored his sen-
tences only to his crimes, rather than to him as an individual. 28
We disagree.
   The record shows that the court made an individualized
sentencing decision. During the resentencing hearing, the court
explicitly declined to resentence Ramirez consistent with the
sentences imposed upon his codefendant, Castaneda. It rea-
soned that in cases involving conspiracy or felony murder,
some parties are “more involved than others in what took
place.” It stated that “the Court has to take consideration
of that because each person comes to the Court as an indi-
vidual different than other parties.” (Emphasis supplied.) This
is important.
   [10] The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a
subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s
24
     State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407, 888 N.W.2d 376 (2016).
25
     See, State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22, 899 N.W.2d 215 (2017); State v.
     Nollen, 296 Neb. 94, 892 N.W.2d 81 (2017).
26
     See, e.g., State v. Hunt, 214 Neb. 214, 333 N.W.2d 405 (1983) (no
     requirement of specific factual findings when sentencing juvenile
     offender). See, also, State v. Blaha, 303 Neb. 415, 929 N.W.2d 494 (2019)
     (rejecting notion that trial court does not adequately consider sentencing
     factors when it does not discuss each factor during sentencing hearing or
     in sentencing order).
27
     Jones v. Mississippi, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 209 L. Ed. 2d 390
     (2021).
28
     See State v. Harrison, 255 Neb. 990, 1005, 588 N.W.2d 556, 565 (1999)
     (“a sentence should fit the offender and not merely the crime”).
                                    - 431 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. RAMIREZ
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 419

observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all
the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. 29
Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the court
resentenced Ramirez based upon his involvement in the crimes
and having considered the facts and circumstances surround-
ing his life.
   Having determined that the district court considered the
appropriate factors and made an individualized sentenc-
ing decision, we find no abuse of discretion in the sen-
tences imposed.
                  “De Facto Life Sentence”
   Ramirez next contends that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing a “de facto life sentence” in violation
of his due process and Eighth Amendment rights. His appeal
follows the argument made in a line of similar cases in recent
years, 30 in which juvenile offenders have challenged their
sentences by arguing that the sentences imposed amount to a
“de facto life sentence” that is not permitted under the U.S.
Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller 31 or Graham v. Florida. 32
Because our prior cases set forth the legal background lead-
ing to the resentencing of juvenile offenders under Miller and
Graham, we do not repeat it here.
   We are cognizant that the Eighth Amendment forbids a
state sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without
the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender convicted
29
     State v. Estrada Comacho, supra note 22.
30
     See, State v. Steele, 300 Neb. 617, 915 N.W.2d 560 (2018); State v.
     Thieszen, supra note 23; State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483, 908 N.W.2d
     669 (2018); State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557, 900 N.W.2d 757 (2017); State
     v. Nollen, supra note 25; State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957, 892 N.W.2d 52
     (2017); State v. Castaneda, supra note 14; State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434,
     888 N.W.2d 526 (2016); State v. Mantich, supra note 24.
31
     Miller v. Alabama, supra note 2.
32
     Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825
     (2010).
                                    - 432 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                              STATE V. RAMIREZ
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 419

of homicide. 33 Here, Ramirez was not sentenced to life impris-
onment without parole, but to imprisonment for a term of years
that allows for parole eligibility.
   Ramirez relies upon an Iowa case 34 in arguing that his
lengthy term-of-years sentence amounts to a de facto sentence
of life imprisonment. We have rejected that case’s reasoning, 35
and we decline to revisit that conclusion here. Moreover, we
read the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Mississippi
to confirm our reasoning. 36 Having reviewed the record in its
entirety, we conclude that Ramirez was sentenced in accord­
ance with § 28-105.02 and Miller.
                         CONCLUSION
   We find no merit to Ramirez’ contentions on appeal that the
district court imposed an excessive aggregate sentence or an
unlawful “de facto life sentence.” Because the district court
did not abuse its discretion in resentencing Ramirez, we affirm
the judgment.
                                                   Affirmed.
   Freudenberg, J., not participating.
33
     State v. Jones, supra note 30.
34
     See State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 2013).
35
     See State v. Cardeilhac, 293 Neb. 200, 876 N.W.2d 876 (2016). See, also,
     State v. Becker, supra note 19 (Eighth Amendment analysis applied to
     individual sentences).
36
     Jones v. Mississippi, supra note 27.