State v. Smith

295 Neb. 957 (2017) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · March 3, 2017 · No. No. S-16-199

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed Brian D. Smith’s appeal from a resentencing for kidnapping committed when he was 16 years old. Smith argued that his 90-years-to-life sentence was excessive, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and was inconsistent with Graham v. Florida; he also alleged a breach of his plea agreement. The court affirmed the sentence.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Kelch, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Wright, J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
March 3, 2017
Docket number
No. S-16-199
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Washington County District Court after resentencing following the vacation of Smith's unconstitutional life sentence. Smith challenged the State's alleged breach of his plea agreement and argued that his 90-years-to-life sentence was excessive and unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Graham v. Florida.
Standard of review
Whether the State breached an undisputed plea agreement is a question of law reviewed independently. Whether a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law reviewed independently. A sentence within statutory limits is reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse occurs when the sentencing court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive the litigant of a substantial right and a just result.
Precedential value
Published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Brian D. Smith v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingplea bargainingcruel and unusual punishmentcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedurejuvenile sentencingconstitutional lawplea bargaining

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the State breached the 1983 plea agreement by arguing that Smith should receive a life-equivalent sentence.
  2. Which good-time law governed Smith's parole eligibility after his original sentence was vacated and he was resentenced.
  3. Whether Smith's 90-years-to-life sentence was unconstitutional under Graham v. Florida and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it allegedly constituted a de facto sentence of life without parole.
  4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 90-years-to-life sentence.

Holdings

  1. The State did not breach the plea agreement by arguing for a life sentence because the agreement contained no term restricting the State from recommending life imprisonment, and courts enforce only terms to which the parties actually agreed.
  2. The good-time law in effect when Smith's new sentence becomes final governs his parole eligibility; because his original sentence was vacated as unconstitutional and void, the current good-time law applies.
  3. Smith's 90-years-to-life sentence did not violate Graham v. Florida or the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it provided a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release at age 62, before his average life expectancy.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing 90 years' to life imprisonment.

Key quotations

A void sentence is no sentence. (at 974)
it is unconstitutional for a state to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense. (at 975-976)
The Constitution requires that juvenile offenders be given “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” (at 976)
Rather, Graham requires only a meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release. (at 979)

Factual background

Brian D. Smith committed burglary and kidnapping when he was 16 years old and pleaded guilty in 1983 in exchange for dismissal of robbery, first degree sexual assault, and felony murder charges. The kidnapping victim was abducted, sexually assaulted, and drowned after Smith and his codefendant drove her car into the Missouri River. Smith's original life sentence was vacated after Graham v. Florida, and he was resentenced to 90 years' to life imprisonment. Under the applicable current good-time law, Smith would become eligible for parole at age 62, approximately 17 years before the average life expectancy identified in the record.

Procedural history

Smith pleaded guilty in 1983 to burglary and kidnapping offenses committed when he was 16. His original life sentence for kidnapping was later vacated in habeas corpus proceedings under Graham v. Florida, and the matter was remanded to the Washington County District Court for resentencing. The district court imposed 90 years' to life imprisonment, overruled Smith's objection and motion concerning the plea agreement, and Smith appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…