Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 176 - JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.017 (2026)

Imposition of sentence on person convicted as adult for offense committed when person was under age of 18 years: Additional considerations; reduction of sentence

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 176.017  Imposition of sentence on person convicted as adult for offense committed when person was under age of 18 years: Additional considerations; reduction of sentence.

      1.  If a person is convicted as an adult for an offense that the person committed when he or she was less than 18 years of age, in addition to any other factor that the court is required to consider before imposing a sentence upon such a person, the court shall consider the differences between juvenile and adult offenders, including, without limitation, the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults and the typical characteristics of youth.

      2.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after considering the factors set forth in subsection 1, the court may, in its discretion, reduce any mandatory minimum period of incarceration that the person is required to serve by not more than 35 percent if the court determines that such a reduction is warranted given the age of the person and his or her prospects for rehabilitation.

      (Added to NRS by 2015, 618; A 2017, 1219)

Sentence of Death; Terms of Imprisonment; Restitution

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: State of Iowa v. Rene Zarate, 908 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Iowa v. Rene Zarate, 908 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 2018). “"); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 176.017 (West, Westlaw through 79th Reg.”
Mitchell v. Nevada Legislative Couns. (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 6× “017 violates equal protection and due 20 process because it does not apply retroactively.”
McKinnon (Ayden) v. State (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing McKinnon without explicitly stating it applied mitigating factors at the time McKinnon argues that his sentence is severe in light of the circumstances, and he must be resentenced because the district court did not…”
State Vs. Boston (andre), 2015 NV 98 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 4× “Amendments to NRS 176.017 direct trial courts to "consider the differences between juvenile and adult offenders, including, without limitation, the diminished culpability of juveniles.”
Feazeal (Travis) Vs. State (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “Feazeal does not provide any evidence suggesting that the district court ignored these facts or otherwise failed to consider the guidelines set forth in NRS 176.017. 10 here prevent the sentencer from taking account of these central consideration?).”
Gilliland (Devin) Vs. State, 474 P.3d 335 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “See NRS 176.017 (requiring the district court to consider the differences between juvenile and adult offenders before sentencing and allowing a court discretion to reduce a sentence by 35%).”
Love-Camp (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 2× “Counsel failed to object to the state court’s failure to consider the factors under NRS 176.017(a) or to exercise its discretion to reduce Love- 2 Camp’s sentence by up to 35% below the mandatory minimum under NRS 176.”
Domingues (Michael) v. State (Nev. 2017). “In Montgomery, the Supreme Court determined that based upon its prior 3 We note that if Domingues' crimes had been committed today the court would be required to consider differences between juvenile and adult offenders before imposing a sentence, see NRS 176.017, and Domingues…”
Mitchell (Deangelo) v. Nev. Legislative Couns. (Nev. 2018). “BROYThl CIE kEME COURE BY rEpTi LEISK ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus requests clarification of whether the Legislature's 2017 amendment to NRS 176.017, which applied prospectively only, violates equal protection and due process.”
Mitchell v. Nev. Legislative Couns., 430 P.3d 529 (Nev. 2018). “ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus requests clarification of whether the Legislature's 2017 amendment to NRS 176.017, which applied prospectively only, violates equal protection and due process.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.017(1) — 1 case
Feazeal (Travis) Vs. State (Nev. 2019). “Feazeal does not provide any evidence suggesting that the district court ignored these facts or otherwise failed to consider the guidelines set forth in NRS 176.017. 10 here prevent the sentencer from taking account of these central consideration?).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.017(a) — 1 case
Love-Camp (D. Nev. 2025). “Counsel failed to object to the state court’s failure to consider the factors under NRS 176.017(a) or to exercise its discretion to reduce Love- 2 Camp’s sentence by up to 35% below the mandatory minimum under NRS 176.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.017(b) — 1 case
Love-Camp (D. Nev. 2025). “Counsel failed to object to the state court’s failure to consider the factors under NRS 176.017(a) or to exercise its discretion to reduce Love- 2 Camp’s sentence by up to 35% below the mandatory minimum under NRS 176.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.