State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757

Ronald L. Lantz, Sr. was convicted by jury of three counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child; each conviction carried a 15-year mandatory minimum; district court sentenced each to 15–25 years, with Counts I and II consecutive and Count III concurrent.
On direct appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals found plain error in the concurrent sentence for Count III, relying on language from State v. Castillas, and ordered all three sentences to be consecutive; the district court resentenced accordingly.
Lantz petitioned for further review, arguing § 28-319.01 does not require consecutive service and the sentencing court retained discretion to impose concurrent sentences.
After the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided State v. Berney, clarifying that Castillas’ broad statement (that all mandatory minimums must be consecutive) was overbroad and distinguishing statutory mandatory-consecutive provisions from enhanced penalties (e.g., habitual criminal enhancements).
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass, addressed whether mandatory minimum sentences generally must be served consecutively, and ultimately vacated the resentencing order and directed reinstatement of the original sentence (two consecutive, one concurrent).

Issue	Lantz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether convictions carrying a statutory mandatory minimum sentence must be served consecutively to each other	§ 28-319.01 does not mandate consecutive service; sentencing court retains discretion to order concurrent sentences	Mandatory minimum sentences cannot be concurrent; each must be served consecutively (per Castillas)	Held: No per se rule; where statute does not expressly require consecutive service, trial court has discretion; Court disapproved an overbroad reading of Castillas
Whether the Court of Appeals plainly erred by remanding to order all three sentences consecutive	Remand ordering consecutive sentences was erroneous because the statute is silent on consecutive service	Court of Appeals relied on Castillas to find plain error	Held: Court of Appeals erred; vacated resentencing and reinstated original mix of consecutive and concurrent sentences
Whether enhancements under habitual criminal statute require consecutive service	(Lantz) Enhancements do not alter discretion absent express statutory command	(State) Mandatory enhancements should be consecutive	Held: Following Berney, habitual enhancements that create mandatory minimums do not automatically require consecutive service unless statute so prescribes; sentencing discretion remains

State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174 (overbroad language about mandatory minimums requiring consecutive service; later clarified)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377 (clarifies Castillas; distinguishes crimes that statutorily mandate consecutive service from statutory enhancements)
State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612 (general rule that trial court has discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences)
State v. King, 275 Neb. 899 (multiple sentences imposed at same time run concurrently unless statute or court order states otherwise)
State v. Lantz, 21 Neb. App. 679 (Court of Appeals opinion ordering resentence to consecutive sentences, later reviewed)