Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that mandatory minimum sentences for first degree sexual assault of a child are not automatically required to run consecutively when the governing statute does not expressly require consecutive sentencing. The court vacated the resentencing order and remanded with directions to reinstate the original sentences, under which two counts ran consecutively and the third ran concurrently.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Nebraska law requires sentences for multiple convictions carrying mandatory minimum sentences under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319.01 to be served consecutively.
- Whether the district court committed plain error by ordering the sentence on Lantz's third conviction to run concurrently with the other sentences.
- Whether the Nebraska Court of Appeals properly ordered resentencing to three consecutive sentences based on the language in State v. Castillas.
Holdings
- In Nebraska, multiple sentences imposed at the same time run concurrently unless a statute prohibits concurrent service or the sentencing court states otherwise when pronouncing the sentences. A mandatory minimum sentence does not, by itself, require consecutive service unless the applicable statute expressly requires it.
- State v. Castillas is limited to specific crimes whose governing statutes require the mandatory minimum sentence to be served consecutively to other sentences. Any interpretation of Castillas as requiring consecutive sentencing for all convictions carrying mandatory minimum sentences is expressly disapproved.
- The district court did not commit plain error by ordering the sentence for Lantz's third conviction to run concurrently with the other two sentences.
Key quotations
“There is a distinction between a conviction for a crime that requires both a mandatory minimum sentence and mandates consecutive sentences, and the enhancement of the penalty for a crime because the defendant is found to be a habitual criminal. In the former, the mandatory minimum sentence must be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed, because the statute for that crime requires it. In the latter, the law does not require the enhanced penalty to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. The sentence is left to the discretion of the court.” (290 Neb. at 762-63)
“In Nebraska, unless prohibited by statute or unless the sentencing court states otherwise when it pronounces the sentences, multiple sentences imposed at the same time run concurrently with each other.” (290 Neb. at 763)
Factual background
A jury convicted Ronald L. Lantz, Sr., of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319.01. The district court imposed a sentence of 15 to 25 years' imprisonment on each count, ordering counts I and II to run consecutively and count III concurrently. After the Nebraska Court of Appeals ordered all three sentences to run consecutively, the district court resentenced Lantz accordingly.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Lantz of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. The district court originally imposed two consecutive sentences and one concurrent sentence. On direct appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found plain error and ordered resentencing to three consecutive sentences. The district court resentenced Lantz accordingly, and the Nebraska Supreme Court vacated that resentencing order and remanded with directions to reinstate the original sentence structure.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court's May 8, 2014, resentencing order and reinstate the original sentences, with counts I and II served consecutively and count III served concurrently.