(1) In all criminal cases that now are or may hereafter be pending in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the appellate court may reduce the sentence rendered by the district court against the accused when in its opinion the sentence is excessive, and it shall be the duty of the appellate court to render such sentence against the accused as in its opinion may be warranted by the evidence. No judgment shall be set aside, new trial granted, or judgment rendered in any criminal case on the grounds of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure if the appellate court, after an examination of the entire cause, considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
(2) In all criminal cases based on offenses subject to determinate sentencing under subsection (2) of section 29-2204.02, the appellate court may determine that a sentence is excessive because the district court did not provide substantial and compelling reasons for imposing a sentence other than probation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
202
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1931–2026 · leading case:
State v. Morton, 966 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2021).
State v. Morton, 966 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 9× “Comparative analysis is not mandatory in a challenge under the Eighth Amendment and is useful only to validate an initial judgment that a sentence is so grossly disproportionate to a crime as to be excessive; review of an excessive sentence claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308…”
State v. Philipps, 496 N.W.2d 874 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 18× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2308 (Cum.Supp. 1992) provides: In all criminal cases that now are or may hereafter be pending in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the appellate court may reduce the sentence rendered by the district court against the accused when in its opinion the…”
State v. Stewart, 250 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 8× “In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant 'adduced at the trial, including his own confession and description of the shooting and killing of Ehlers, the admission of the photographs in question was, at most, harmless *513 error under section…”
State v. Blaha, 303 Neb. 415 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “First, Blaha contends that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 2016) has become meaningless.”
State v. Iromuanya, 719 N.W.2d 263 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1995) provides in pertinent part that in criminal appeals brought in this court or the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the appellate court may reduce the sentence rendered by the district court against the accused when in its opinion the sentence is…”
State v. Medina-Liborio, 829 N.W.2d 96 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 6× “In most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.”
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 4× “§ 29-2308 In this section of his motion, Nesbitt appears to attack the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Palmer, 399 N.W.2d 706 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “This is precisely what we do when we examine any sentence pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1985) to determine whether the sentence imposed is excessive.”
State v. Gutierrez, 620 N.W.2d 738 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1995) authorizes this court to reduce a sentence that is considered excessive and render an appropriate sentence.”
State v. Oldenburg, 628 N.W.2d 278 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1995) provides that an "appellate court may reduce the sentence rendered by the district court against the accused when in its opinion the sentence is excessive, and it shall be the duty of the appellate court to render such sentence against the…”
State v. Copple, 401 N.W.2d 141 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Furthermore, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Cum. Supp. 1984) provides that “[n]o judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted.”
State v. Rocha, 286 Neb. 256 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Finding no merit in any of Rocha’s other assignments of error, I would affirm his convictions and sentences without reaching his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thereby permitting him to pursue his postconviction remedy on that issue.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308(1) — 2 cases
State v. Morton, 966 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2021).
“Comparative analysis is not mandatory in a challenge under the Eighth Amendment and is useful only to validate an initial judgment that a sentence is so grossly disproportionate to a crime as to be excessive; review of an excessive sentence claim under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.