NRS
176.055 Credit against sentence of imprisonment.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, whenever a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail or state
prison is imposed, the court may order that credit be allowed against the
duration of the sentence, including any minimum term or minimum aggregate term,
as applicable, thereof prescribed by law, for the amount of time which the
defendant has actually spent in confinement before conviction, unless the
defendant’s confinement was pursuant to a judgment of conviction for another
offense. Credit allowed pursuant to this subsection does not alter the date
from which the term of imprisonment is computed.
2. A defendant who is convicted of a
subsequent offense which was committed while the defendant was:
(a) In custody on a prior charge is not eligible
for any credit on the sentence for the subsequent offense for time the
defendant has spent in confinement on the prior charge, unless the charge was
dismissed or the defendant was acquitted.
(b) Imprisoned in a county jail or state prison
or on probation or parole from a Nevada conviction is not eligible for any
credit on the sentence for the subsequent offense for the time the defendant
has spent in confinement which is within the period of the prior sentence,
regardless of whether any probation or parole has been formally revoked.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1433; A 1971,
243; 1973,
161; 1981,
479; 2013,
222)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
38
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case:
Gaines v. State
Gaines v. State (2000)
nev · cites it 11×
“1 We disagree because the district court was prohibited under NRS 176.055 and the terms of the plea agreement from applying credit in cases B and C.”
Anglin v. State (1974)
nev · cites it 22×
“NRS 176.055 (1967). [1] In 1971, credit for pretrail confinement was extended to state prison commitment.”
State v. Second Judicial District Court (2005)
nev · cites it 6×
“NRS 176.055 allows the district court to award credit against the duration of a sentence for time “actually spent in confinement before conviction.”
POASA (UPUTAUA) VS. STATE (2019)
nev · cites it 10×
“She relies on Nevada law, notably NRS 176.055(1) and this coures interpretation of the statute in Kuykendall v.”
Nieto v. State (2003)
nev · cites it 4×
“’ ’ Therefore, Nieto argues that because the charges in Nevada were the sole reason for his incarceration in California, pursuant to NRS 176.055, 2 he is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody from the date of his arrest until his extradition.”
Haney v. State (2008)
nev · cites it 2×
“055(1) states in relevant part that whenever a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail or state prison is imposed, the court may order that credit be allowed against the duration of the sentence, including any minimum term thereof prescribed by law, for the amount of time…”
Johnson v. State (2004)
nev · cites it 3×
“6 As we held in Kuykendall, the purpose of NRS 176.055, the statute governing the application of credit for presentence confinement, is ‘ ‘to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendant’s ultimate sentence.”
McMichael v. State (1978)
nev · cites it 2×
“The Dearing court denied credit on the first charge for time served pursuant to the second unrelated arrest because the subsequent confinement was, in the exempting language of NRS 176.055, “pursuant to a judgment of conviction for another offense.”
Kuykendall v. State (1996)
nev · cites it 4×
“NRS 176.055(1) provides, in pertinent part: “[Wjhenever a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail or state prison is imposed, the court may order that credit be allowed against the duration of the sentence .”
Maus v. State (1987)
md
“2d 878, 879 (1983) (defendant who had spent time at residential drug treatment facility was not “in confinement” within the meaning of Nev.Rev.Stat. § 176.055 because he was free to leave the facility at any time); People ex rel.”
Griffin v. State (2006)
nev
“NRS 176.055(2)(b) provides that a defendant convicted of a subsequent offense which was committed while he was “[i]mprisoned in .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.055(1) — 17 cases
POASA (UPUTAUA) VS. STATE (2019)
nev
“She relies on Nevada law, notably NRS 176.055(1) and this coures interpretation of the statute in Kuykendall v.”
Haney v. State (2008)
nev
“055(1) states in relevant part that whenever a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail or state prison is imposed, the court may order that credit be allowed against the duration of the sentence, including any minimum term thereof prescribed by law, for the amount of time…”
Johnson v. State (2004)
nev
“6 As we held in Kuykendall, the purpose of NRS 176.055, the statute governing the application of credit for presentence confinement, is ‘ ‘to ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendant’s ultimate sentence.”
Kuykendall v. State (1996)
nev
“NRS 176.055(1) provides, in pertinent part: “[Wjhenever a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail or state prison is imposed, the court may order that credit be allowed against the duration of the sentence .”
Nieto v. State (2003)
nev
“’ ’ Therefore, Nieto argues that because the charges in Nevada were the sole reason for his incarceration in California, pursuant to NRS 176.055, 2 he is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody from the date of his arrest until his extradition.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.055(2) — 4 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.055(2)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176.055(2)(b) — 4 cases
Gaines v. State (2000)
nev
“1 We disagree because the district court was prohibited under NRS 176.055 and the terms of the plea agreement from applying credit in cases B and C.”
Griffin v. State (2006)
nev
“NRS 176.055(2)(b) provides that a defendant convicted of a subsequent offense which was committed while he was “[i]mprisoned in .”
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.