Gray v. Frakes, 311 Neb. 409

Gray was convicted of two felony counts in 2007 and, after enhancement, adjudicated a habitual criminal and sentenced to consecutive 10-to-20-year terms on each count.
The written sentencing order fixed 10–20 years on each count but did not expressly label the minimums as “mandatory minimums.”
At sentencing the court orally referenced the habitual criminal finding and made statements indicating Gray would have to serve minimums before parole or discharge; Gray acknowledged those statements.
DCS initially set Gray’s mandatory discharge date for April 2026 but later recalculated it to April 2036, treating each 10-year minimum as a statutory mandatory minimum and applying the Castillas/Caton computation.
Gray filed a mandamus petition seeking to force DCS to set the discharge date to April 2026; the district court dismissed the petition and the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DCS may treat the sentencing court’s fixed minimum terms as statutory “mandatory minimums” for calculating mandatory discharge dates when the sentencing order did not expressly pronounce them "mandatory minimums"	Gray: Because the sentencing order did not expressly pronounce "mandatory minimum" terms, Caton and Castillas do not apply and DCS miscalculated his mandatory discharge date.	DCS: When a defendant is adjudicated a habitual criminal under § 29-2221, the statutory mandatory minimums apply by operation of law; DCS correctly calculated discharge per Castillas/Caton.	The court held the sentencing court need not expressly say "mandatory minimum"; statutory mandatory minimums apply by operation of law once the habitual-criminal finding is made, so DCS’s calculation was correct.

Caton v. State, 291 Neb. 939, 869 N.W.2d 911 (2015) (explains how mandatory discharge date is computed when mandatory minimums apply)
State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174, 826 N.W.2d 255 (2013) (describes formula for computing mandatory discharge date when mandatory minimum applies)
State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757, 861 N.W.2d 728 (2015) (disapproving Castillas on other grounds)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33, 863 N.W.2d 813 (2015) (distinguishes the term-of-art "mandatory minimum" from the minimum term a court must fix)
Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955, 902 N.W.2d 165 (2017) (recognizes DCS’s role in implementing consequences of statutory mandatory minimums)