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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.035

Conviction of two or more offenses; concurrent and consecutive sentences; aggregating consecutive sentences and sentences for additional penalties

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 176.035  Conviction of two or more offenses; concurrent and consecutive sentences; aggregating consecutive sentences and sentences for additional penalties.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, whenever a person is convicted of two or more offenses, and sentence has been pronounced for one offense, the court in imposing any subsequent sentence may provide that the sentences subsequently pronounced run either concurrently or consecutively with the sentence first imposed. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 3 and 4, if the court makes no order with reference thereto, all such subsequent sentences run concurrently. For offenses committed on or after July 1, 2014, if the court imposes the sentences to run consecutively, the court must pronounce the minimum and maximum aggregate terms of imprisonment pursuant to subsection 2, unless the defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death.

      2.  When aggregating terms of imprisonment pursuant to subsection 1:

      (a) If at least one sentence imposes a maximum term of imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole, the court must aggregate the minimum terms of imprisonment to determine the minimum aggregate term of imprisonment, and the maximum aggregate term of imprisonment shall be deemed to be imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole.

      (b) If all the sentences impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, the court must aggregate the minimum terms of imprisonment to determine the minimum aggregate term of imprisonment and must aggregate the maximum terms of imprisonment to determine the maximum aggregate term of imprisonment.

      3.  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whenever a person under sentence of imprisonment for committing a felony commits another crime constituting a felony and is sentenced to another term of imprisonment for that felony, the latter term must not begin until the expiration of all prior terms, including the expiration of any prior aggregated terms. If the person is a probationer at the time the subsequent felony is committed, the court may provide that the latter term of imprisonment run concurrently with any prior terms or portions thereof.

      4.  Whenever a person under sentence of imprisonment commits another crime constituting a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, the court shall provide expressly whether the sentence subsequently pronounced runs concurrently or consecutively with the one first imposed.

      5.  Whenever a person under sentence of imprisonment commits another crime for which the punishment is death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole, the sentence must be executed without reference to the unexpired term of imprisonment.

      6.  Regardless of whether a person is under sentence of imprisonment, if the person commits another crime for which the punishment is death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole, the sentence must be executed without reference to eligibility for parole.

      7.  If a court imposes an additional penalty pursuant to NRS 193.161 to 193.1685, inclusive, the sentence imposed for the additional penalty must be aggregated with the sentence imposed for the underlying offense. A prisoner upon whom a sentence for an additional penalty is imposed pursuant to NRS 193.161 to 193.1685, inclusive, before October 1, 2019, may elect to have the sentence imposed for the additional penalty aggregated with the sentence imposed for the underlying offense in accordance with subsection 5 of NRS 213.1212.

      8.  This section does not prevent the State Board of Parole Commissioners from paroling a person under consecutive sentences of imprisonment from a current term of imprisonment to a subsequent term of imprisonment.

      9.  This section must not be construed to prohibit the aggregation of any sentences of imprisonment relating to different cases.

      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1432; A 1973, 181, 674; 1987, 591; 1997, 1187; 2001, 1936; 2013, 221; 2019, 233)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Gaines v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaines v. State (2000) nev · cites it 6× “055 is ambiguous since it conflicts with NRS 176.035. We conclude that this argument lacks merit, as we see no conflict between these statutes.”
Mendoza-Lobos v. State (2009) nev · cites it 2× “[2] Mendoza-Lobos also contends that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by ordering each sentence to run consecutively.”
Chavez v. State (2009) nev “See NRS 176.035(1); Warden v. Peters, 83 Nev.”
Adams v. Warden, Nevada State Prison (1981) nev · cites it 5× “1 NRS 176.035 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”
Staley v. State (1990) nev · cites it 2× “Under Nevada law, NRS 176.035(1), multiple sentences run concurrently unless otherwise specified.”
Bradley v. State (1993) nev · cites it 2× “NRS 176.035(1) mandates a concurrent sentence when the sentencing court fails to designate the sentence as consecutive.”
Ybarra v. State (1984) nev “NRS 176.035(1). Finally, we hold that the phrase “depravity of mind,” contained in the death penalty statute (NRS 200.”
Housewright v. Powell (1985) nev · cites it 5× “” See NRS 176.035(2). The district court concluded that the pleas were constitutionally infirm and permitted Powell to withdraw his pleas.”
Colwell v. State (1996) nev “033(1)(a); NRS 176.035; NRS 176.045. Colwell’s counsel’s second argument challenging the constitutionality of the three-judge panel procedure is that the three-judge panel procedure violates a defendant’s right to an impartial tribunal, due process and a reliable sentence by…”
MILES (CHRISTIAN) v. STATE (2021) nev · cites it 3× “" The trial court also warned Miles that "[t]he State would love to have you 3Mi1es also argues that (1) his sentence is cruel and unusual in violation of the state and federal constitutions; (2) NRS 176.035(1) is unconstitutionally vague in that it gives district judges…”
Powell v. State (1997) nev “…we direct the lower court to clarify the specific sentences for each of Powell’s convictions. See NRS 176.033(1); NRS 176.035.”
Forbes v. State (1980) nev · cites it 5× “2d 1201 (1979), that all parties present at the second sentencing proceeded under a mistake of law regarding the requirements of sentencing pursuant to NRS 176.035. We agree.- Appellant was not under a sentence of imprisonment at the time of his escape.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.035(1) — 56 cases
Mendoza-Lobos v. State (2009) nev “[2] Mendoza-Lobos also contends that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by ordering each sentence to run consecutively.”
Chavez v. State (2009) nev “See NRS 176.035(1); Warden v. Peters, 83 Nev.”
Staley v. State (1990) nev “Under Nevada law, NRS 176.035(1), multiple sentences run concurrently unless otherwise specified.”
Bradley v. State (1993) nev “NRS 176.035(1) mandates a concurrent sentence when the sentencing court fails to designate the sentence as consecutive.”
Ybarra v. State (1984) nev “NRS 176.035(1). Finally, we hold that the phrase “depravity of mind,” contained in the death penalty statute (NRS 200.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.035(2) — 9 cases
Gaines v. State (2000) nev “055 is ambiguous since it conflicts with NRS 176.035. We conclude that this argument lacks merit, as we see no conflict between these statutes.”
Housewright v. Powell (1985) nev “” See NRS 176.035(2). The district court concluded that the pleas were constitutionally infirm and permitted Powell to withdraw his pleas.”
Adams v. Warden, Nevada State Prison (1981) nev “1 NRS 176.035 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”
State v. Breen (1979) nev
Forbes v. State (1980) nev “2d 1201 (1979), that all parties present at the second sentencing proceeded under a mistake of law regarding the requirements of sentencing pursuant to NRS 176.035. We agree.- Appellant was not under a sentence of imprisonment at the time of his escape.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.035(2)(b) — 1 case
Dease v. Daniels (2021) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.035(3) — 3 cases
State v. Midby (Ronald) (2018) nev
Orr v. State of Nevada (2019) nvd
Thomas v. Williams (2021) nvd
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.