State v. Iromuanya

Hendry, C.J.,

concurring in part, and in part dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which modifies the sentence on count III, murder in the second degree, for which the district court sentenced Iromuanya to “not less than life imprisonment nor more than life imprisonment.”

In considering a sentence, the sentencing court is not limited in its discretion to any mathematically applied set of factors. State v. Weaver, 267 Neb. 826 , 677 N.W.2d 502 (2004). The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observations of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. State v. Worm, 268 Neb. 74 , 680 N.W.2d 151 (2004).

It is true that the district court found that Iromuanya had no significant criminal history, but, as the majority notes, Iromuanya *219 brought a loaded, concealed handgun to the party. The gun was intentionally used in a senseless act of violence, resulting in the shooting of Nolan Jenkins in the head and Jenna Cooper’s death. Regardless of whether this court would have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence under the same or similar circumstances, I cannot conclude that the sentencing court’s reasons for the sentence, inter alia, protection of the public and imposition of a sentence that does not depreciate the seriousness of the crime, are clearly untenable and deprive Iromuanya of a substantial right and just result. See State v. Sanders, 269 Neb. 895 , 697 N.W.2d 657 (2005). I would find no abuse of discretion and affirm Iromuanya’s original sentence on count III.

In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.

Gerrard, J., joins in this concurrence and dissent.