The Nebraska Supreme Court has affirmed a life sentence imposed on Armon K. Rejai for second degree murder, making it clear that appellate courts will not second-guess a trial judge’s sentencing decision unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. The ruling strongly reasserts established legal principles, specifically rejecting the notion that defendants can successfully challenge a sentence based on comparisons to sentences given in unrelated cases.
Rejai, who pleaded no contest to second degree murder following a fatal shooting of his neighbor, Julian Martinez, received the maximum penalty of 20 years to life imprisonment. His appeal centered on the argument that this sentence was excessive, despite falling within the statutory range.
The Shooting and Plea Agreement
The case stems from a confrontation in Lancaster County on January 21, 2023. Rejai admitted to police that after an earlier dispute involving dog leashes and a pepper-spraying incident with his neighbors, he retrieved a handgun. When the victim, Martinez, allegedly pounded on his door, Rejai opened it and shot Martinez once in the chest, leading to his death.
Rejai initially faced charges of first degree murder and firearm use, but accepted a plea deal, pleading no contest to second degree murder, a Class IB felony. He acknowledged to the court that he understood the potential penalty ranged from 20 years to life imprisonment.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) Battle
The crux of the appeal focused heavily on the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), a massive document containing over 1,600 pages. Rejai’s defense presented a psychological evaluation diagnosing him, at age 30, with autism spectrum disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. His expert rated him as low-risk for recidivism, contrasting sharply with the probation officer’s high-risk assessment using the same scale.
Rejai had no prior criminal convictions, though the PSR included depositions related to a prior, ultimately dismissed, terroristic threats charge against former neighbors.
During sentencing, the district court considered Rejai’s personal statement detailing how the autism diagnosis affected his self-awareness and interactions leading up to the shooting. However, the court also reviewed the deposition testimony from his previous neighbors and an anonymous tip alleging Rejai threatened to kill two people while awaiting trial.
The trial judge ultimately imposed the maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Appellate Review: Sticking to the Standard
The Nebraska Supreme Court’s review was constrained by established precedent. As the sentence was within statutory limits, the only avenue for reversal was demonstrating that the trial court committed an “abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion is defined as a decision based on untenable or unreasonable grounds, or one clearly contrary to justice, conscience, reason, and evidence.
The appellate court systematically rejected Rejai’s three main arguments:
1. Adequately Considering Mitigating Factors: Rejai claimed the court failed to adequately weigh his psychological diagnosis and personal statement. The Supreme Court found this unpersuasive, noting the trial court held a full evidentiary hearing, received all evidence Rejai presented, and explicitly confirmed it reviewed the updates to the PSR. The appellate court emphasized it is not its role to conduct a “de novo review” to decide what sentence it would have imposed.
2. Considering Content of the PSR: Rejai challenged the court’s consideration of the old neighbor depositions and the unverified jailhouse threat allegation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the sentencing phase allows for relaxed rules of evidence. A sentencing court has broad discretion over the source and type of information considered relevant, provided the defendant had notice and an opportunity to respond, which Rejai did not dispute.
3. The Comparative Analysis Argument: This was the most significant focus of the high court’s opinion. Rejai relied on an older case, *State v. Iromuanya*, where the court had previously found a life sentence for second degree murder excessive based partly on the defendant’s extensive violent history, which Rejai lacked.
The Supreme Court used this appeal to clarify and, in fact, disapprove of language used in *Iromuanya*. Citing its more recent ruling in *State v. Morton*, the court stated firmly that sentencing judges are entrusted with imposing punishment, not appellate courts.
“Once it is determined that the sentence prescribed by statute is constitutional and that the sentence imposed is within statutory limits,” the court wrote, “the issue in reviewing a sentence is not whether someone else in a different case received a lesser sentence, but whether the defendant in the subject case received an appropriate one.”
The Nebraska Supreme Court explicitly disapproved the statement from *Iromuanya* that suggested a comparative analysis was necessary when reviewing a maximum sentence for a defendant with no prior violent record. The court concluded that such comparative analysis is impractical and not the duty of an appellate court.
Finding no abuse of discretion in how the trial court weighed the evidence or applied legal principles, the judgment was affirmed.