In State v. Nielsen, 243 Neb. 202, 498 N.W.2d 527, 532-33 (1993), the Nebraska court addressed, however briefly, the merits of Nielsen's conflict-of-interest claim and found it wanting; no mention of procedural default was made. Similarly, in State v. Sobieszczyk, 2 Neb. App. 116, 507 N.W.2d 660 (1993), the Court of Appeals of Nebraska addressed Sobieszczyk's conflict-of-interest claim in some detail before dismissing it on the merits; again no mention of procedural default. Schneckloth, one of the few potentially relevant decisions cited by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Whitmore, see 469 N.W.2d at 531, is in fact utterly irrelevant in all material respects.

However, it is well established that the mere fact that a defendant's sentence differs from those which have been imposed on coperpetrators in the same court does not, in and of itself, make the defendant's sentence an abuse of discretion; each defendant's life, character, and previous conduct may be considered in determining the propriety of the sentence. See, State v. Boppre, 234 Neb. 922, 453 N.W.2d 406 (1990); State v. Sobieszczyk, 2 Neb. App. 116, 507 N.W.2d 660 (1993). Additionally, the Nebraska Supreme Court has refused to attempt to compare sentences when alleged coperpetrators are not convicted of the same crimes.

The mere fact that a defendant's sentence differs from those which have been imposed on coperpetrators in the same court does not, in and of itself, make the defendant's sentence an abuse of discretion; each defendant's life, character, and previous conduct may be considered in determining the propriety of the sentence. State v. Sobieszczyk, 2 Neb. App. 116, 507 N.W.2d 660 (1993). Prior to actually sentencing William Hallowell, the trial judge told William that she would give him credit for not making the boys go through their testimony again and that she was willing not to give him the maximum sentence.