Evans v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 253

Thomas Evans was sentenced as a habitual criminal to 10–15 years with a 10‑year mandatory minimum; court-ordered maximum less good‑time meant his full custody term was 12.5 years.
The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services erroneously discharged Evans on November 19, 2013, after he had served 10 years (before the 12.5‑year mandatory discharge date).
The Department discovered the miscalculation in June 2014, sought and obtained an arrest and commitment warrant, and Evans was returned to custody on June 29, 2014; he later was paroled and projected for release in May 2016.
Evans filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting the recommitment/commitment order was void because the Department had discretion to discharge, the Department’s long‑standing policy amounted to waiver, and the arrest and commitment procedures violated due process.
The district court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding Evans failed to show illegal detention warranting habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department’s unconditional discharge was within its discretion so the court lacked jurisdiction to recommit	Evans: Department’s longstanding policy and practice authorized the discharge and precluded recommitment	State: Department misapplied good‑time credit and exceeded authority by discharging before lawful mandatory discharge date	Held: Discharge was unlawful because good‑time cannot apply to mandatory minimum; court had jurisdiction to enforce sentence and order recommitment
Whether the Department’s longstanding policy/inaction established waiver or estoppel barring recommitment	Evans: Longstanding policy and prior practice constitute waiver of the State’s right to reincarcerate	State: Short duration between discharge and remedy and absence of gross negligence or prolonged inaction; waiver not shown	Held: Waiver/estoppel not established; Nebraska rejects broad waiver theory here and applies equitable day‑for‑day credit where appropriate
Whether Evans was denied due process in the issuance of the arrest and commitment warrant	Evans: No pre‑reincarceration notice, hearing, confrontation, or counsel—affidavit alone insufficient; proceedings were void	State: Department made a prima facie showing to a judge; post‑detention habeas hearing provided adequate process	Held: No due process violation—pre‑detention showing plus post‑detention evidentiary hearing satisfied procedural due process

State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174 (2013) (held that good‑time reductions do not apply to mandatory minimum sentences and set the proper computation method)
Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916 (2008) (analyzed remedies for premature release, rejecting waiver/estoppel doctrines and endorsing equitable day‑for‑day credit in appropriate cases)
Caton v. State, 291 Neb. 939 (2015) (parolees are considered "in custody under sentence" for habeas corpus purposes)
Berumen v. Casady, 245 Neb. 936 (1994) (discusses jurisdiction and enforcement powers of sentencing courts)
Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102 (1979) (writ of habeas corpus properly issues only to challenge void judgments, sentences, or commitments)