Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Markel D. Steele’s consecutive sentences for second degree murder and first degree assault arising from an armed robbery and shooting. Steele, who was 17 when he committed the offenses, argued that his sentences constituted a de facto life sentence under Miller v. Alabama and were excessive. The court held that he would have a meaningful and realistic opportunity for parole and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the relevant sentencing factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Steele's consecutive term-of-years sentences constituted an unlawful de facto life sentence under Miller v. Alabama or Graham v. Florida.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences within the statutory limits.
- Whether the district court was required to consider the mitigating factors listed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260(3) when imposing prison sentences rather than determining whether probation was appropriate.
- Whether the district court relied on impermissible personal bias or prejudice in imposing the sentences.
Holdings
- Steele's sentences did not constitute a de facto life sentence because they provided a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release through parole at age 67; therefore, the court did not need to decide whether Miller requires an irreparable-corruption finding before imposing a life-without-parole sentence.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences of 60 years to life for second degree murder and 40 to 50 years for first degree assault.
- The district court was not required to specifically consider the factors in § 29-2260(3) because those factors apply to deciding whether to withhold imprisonment and grant probation, and a probation-only sentence was not legally available for Steele's offenses.
- The record did not establish that the district court relied on impermissible personal religious beliefs, bias, or prejudice in sentencing Steele.
Key quotations
“An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.” (625)
“We have found that sentences that allow for a “meaningful and realistic opportunity to obtain release” are not de facto life sentences for purposes of Miller v. Alabama, supra, or Graham v. Florida, supra.” (626)
Factual background
Steele, who was 17 when the offenses occurred, pleaded guilty to participating in an armed robbery and shooting at a Lincoln residence. One victim was killed, another was permanently paralyzed, and a dog was also shot and killed. The district court considered Steele's youth, background, mental-health information, the circumstances and violence of the offenses, and public safety before imposing consecutive sentences.
Procedural history
Steele was initially charged with eight felony offenses arising from an armed robbery and shooting. Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to amended charges of second degree murder and first degree assault, while the remaining charges and other unrelated charges were dismissed. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of 60 years to life for second degree murder and 40 to 50 years for first degree assault, with parole eligibility after 50 years. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.