NRS
176.045 Imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentence on person under
sentence in another jurisdiction.
1. Whenever a person convicted of a public
offense in this State is under sentence of imprisonment pronounced by another
jurisdiction, federal or state, whether or not the prior sentence is for the
same offense, the court in imposing any sentence for the offense committed in
this State may, in its discretion, provide that such sentence shall run either
concurrently or consecutively with the prior sentence.
2. If the court provides that the sentence
shall run concurrently, and the defendant is released by the other jurisdiction
prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed in this State, the defendant
shall be returned to the State of Nevada to serve out the balance of such
sentence, unless the defendant is eligible for parole under the provisions of chapter 213 of NRS, and the Board of Parole
Commissioners directs that the defendant be released on parole as provided in
that chapter.
3. If the court makes an order pursuant to
this section, the clerk of the court shall provide the Director of the
Department of Corrections with a certified copy of judgment and notification of
the place of out-of-state confinement.
4. If the court makes no order pursuant to
this section, the sentence imposed in this State shall not begin until the
expiration of all prior sentences imposed by other jurisdictions.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1432; A 1973,
180; 1977,
859; 2001
Special Session, 215)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1996–2019 · leading case:
Colwell v. State, 919 P.2d 403 (Nev. 1996).
Colwell v. State, 919 P.2d 403 (Nev. 1996).
“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 disallowing challenges…”
Mundo v. Dir. N.D.O.C., 443 P.3d 1125 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 3× “NRS 176.045(1). But if the judgment is silent, the Nevada sentence does not begin to run until the out-of-state sentence expires.”
Mundo (Jonathan) v. Dir. (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “NRS 176.045(4). Here, the Nevada sentences were imposed to run consecutively to the sentence in one of appellant's California cases, but the Nevada judgments were silent in regard to appellant's sentence in a second California case.”
King (D'vaughn) v. State (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 176.045; NRS 193.165. Further, the plea agreement stipulated that both parties would be free to argue the consecutive-sentencing issue, and King acknowledged that the district court had sole discretion in determining his sentence and that he was subject to a possible…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.045(1) — 2 cases
Mundo v. Dir. N.D.O.C., 443 P.3d 1125 (Nev. 2019).
“NRS 176.045(1). But if the judgment is silent, the Nevada sentence does not begin to run until the out-of-state sentence expires.”
King (D'vaughn) v. State (Nev. 2014).
“See NRS 176.045; NRS 193.165. Further, the plea agreement stipulated that both parties would be free to argue the consecutive-sentencing issue, and King acknowledged that the district court had sole discretion in determining his sentence and that he was subject to a possible…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.045(4) — 2 cases
Mundo (Jonathan) v. Dir. (Nev. 2019).
“NRS 176.045(4). Here, the Nevada sentences were imposed to run consecutively to the sentence in one of appellant's California cases, but the Nevada judgments were silent in regard to appellant's sentence in a second California case.”
Mundo v. Dir. N.D.O.C., 443 P.3d 1125 (Nev. 2019).
“NRS 176.045(1). But if the judgment is silent, the Nevada sentence does not begin to run until the out-of-state sentence expires.”
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.