Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 176A - PROBATION AND SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290 (2026)

Conditions and limitations on assignment of defendant to program; sanctions and effect of violation of terms and conditions; discharge of defendant upon fulfillment of terms and conditions; effect of discharge; conditional dismissal or setting aside of judgment of conviction for certain offenses

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 176A.290  Conditions and limitations on assignment of defendant to program; sanctions and effect of violation of terms and conditions; discharge of defendant upon fulfillment of terms and conditions; effect of discharge; conditional dismissal or setting aside of judgment of conviction for certain offenses.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) of subsection 3 of NRS 176.211 and NRS 176A.287, if a defendant described in NRS 176A.280 tenders a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty or guilty but mentally ill of:

      (a) Any offense punishable as a felony or gross misdemeanor for which the suspension of sentence or the granting of probation is not prohibited by statute, the district court may:

             (1) Without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of the defendant, suspend or defer further proceedings and place the defendant on probation upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of a program established pursuant to NRS 176A.280 if the court determines that the defendant is eligible for participation in such a program; or

             (2) Enter a judgment of conviction and place the defendant on probation upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of a program established pursuant to NRS 176A.280 if the court determines that the defendant is eligible for participation in such a program; or

      (b) Any offense punishable as a misdemeanor for which the suspension of sentence is not prohibited by statute, the justice court or municipal court, as applicable, may, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of the defendant, suspend further proceedings upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of a program established pursuant to NRS 176A.280.

      2.  Upon violation of a term or condition:

      (a) The district court, justice court or municipal court, as applicable, may impose sanctions against the defendant for the violation, but allow the defendant to remain in the program. Before imposing a sanction, the court shall notify the defendant of the violation and provide the defendant an opportunity to respond. Any sanction imposed pursuant to this paragraph:

             (1) Must be in accordance with any applicable guidelines for sanctions established by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals or any successor organization; and

             (2) May include, without limitation, imprisonment in a county or city jail or detention facility for a term set by the court, which must not exceed 25 days.

      (b) The district court, justice court or municipal court, as applicable, may enter a judgment of conviction, if applicable, and proceed as provided in the section pursuant to which the defendant was charged.

      (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e) of subsection 2 of NRS 193.130, the district court may order the defendant to the custody of the Department of Corrections if the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

      3.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions:

      (a) The district court:

             (1) Shall discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings or set aside the judgment of conviction, as applicable, unless the defendant:

                   (I) Has been previously convicted in this State or in any other jurisdiction of a felony; or

                   (II) Has previously failed to complete a specialty court program; or

             (2) May discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings or set aside the judgment of conviction, as applicable, if the defendant:

                   (I) Has been previously convicted in this State or in any other jurisdiction of a felony; or

                   (II) Has previously failed to complete a specialty court program; or

      (b) The justice court or municipal court, as applicable, shall discharge the defendant and dismiss the proceedings.

      4.  Discharge and dismissal pursuant to this section is without adjudication of guilt and is not a conviction for purposes of this section or for purposes of employment, civil rights or any statute or regulation or license or questionnaire or for any other public or private purpose, but is a conviction for the purpose of additional penalties imposed for second or subsequent convictions or the setting of bail. Discharge and dismissal restores the defendant, in the contemplation of the law, to the status occupied before the arrest, complaint, indictment or information. The defendant may not be held thereafter under any law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement by reason of failure to recite or acknowledge that arrest, complaint, indictment, information or trial in response to an inquiry made of the defendant for any purpose.

      5.  If the defendant was charged with a violation of NRS 200.485, 484C.110 or 484C.120, upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the district court, justice court or municipal court, as applicable, may conditionally dismiss the charges or set aside the judgment of conviction, as applicable. If a court conditionally dismisses the charges or sets aside the judgment of conviction, the court shall notify the defendant that any conditionally dismissed charge or judgment of conviction that is set aside is a conviction for the purpose of additional penalties imposed for second or subsequent convictions or the setting of bail in a future case, but is not a conviction for purposes of employment, civil rights or any statute or regulation or license or questionnaire or for any other public or private purpose. Conditional dismissal or having a judgment of conviction set aside restores the defendant, in the contemplation of the law, to the status occupied before the arrest, complaint, indictment or information. The defendant may not be held thereafter under any law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement by reason of failure to recite or acknowledge that arrest, complaint, indictment, information or trial in response to an inquiry made of the defendant for any purpose.

      (Added to NRS by 2009, 103; A 2013, 2093; 2017, 3021; 2019, 2445, 4396; 2021, 2478)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 42× “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 68 It concluded that “a court’s deci- sion to assign a defendant to the veterans court program is a sentencing decision—it is a statutorily approved alternative to entering a judgment of conviction and imposing a term of incarceration.”
Hager v. State, 447 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 3× “3d 154 , 160-61 (2018) (severing the bracketed language from NRS 176A.290(2) (2017), the then-analogous veteran's court statute, as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine).”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 76× “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 38× “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
Engle (julie) v. Dist. Ct. (state) (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30 (Nev. 2026). · cites it 8× “240 (analogous provision regarding substance use disorder treatment program); NRS 176A.290 (analogous provision regarding veterans court).”
Hager (ian) Vs. State, 2019 NV 34 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 6× “3d 154, 160-61 (2018) (severing the bracketed language from NRS 176A.290(2) (2017), the then-analogous veteran's court statute, as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine).”
Engle (julie) v. Dist. Ct. (state) (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30 (Nev. 2026). · cites it 3× “240 (analogous provision regarding substance use disorder treatment program); NRS 176A.290 (analogous provision regarding veterans court).”
In re I.S., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 2× “At the tirne, NRS 176A.290(2) required the stipulation of the prosecuting attorney before a district court could assign an eligible defendant to veterans court if the offense charged or the defendant's prior convictions involved the use or threatened use of force or violence.”
Ahearn (Jamison) v. State (Nev. 2016). “Transfer is discretionary under NRS 176A.290(1), and Ahearn has failed to show that the district court abused that discretion in denying his motion when it found no nexus between the crime and his service.”
Montalvo (Elias) v. State (Nev. 2018). “100(1)(a); NRS 176A.290(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.”
Harpe (Jeremy) v. State (Nev. 2013). “100(1)(c); NRS 176A.290(1); NRS 458.320(2), and Harpe fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by declining to do so here, see Houk v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290(1) — 6 cases
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
Ahearn (Jamison) v. State (Nev. 2016). “Transfer is discretionary under NRS 176A.290(1), and Ahearn has failed to show that the district court abused that discretion in denying his motion when it found no nexus between the crime and his service.”
Montalvo (Elias) v. State (Nev. 2018). “100(1)(a); NRS 176A.290(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290(2) — 7 cases
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
Hager v. State, 447 P.3d 1063 (Nev. 2019). “3d 154 , 160-61 (2018) (severing the bracketed language from NRS 176A.290(2) (2017), the then-analogous veteran's court statute, as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine).”
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024). “” 68 It concluded that “a court’s deci- sion to assign a defendant to the veterans court program is a sentencing decision—it is a statutorily approved alternative to entering a judgment of conviction and imposing a term of incarceration.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290(2)(b) — 1 case
In re I.S., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18 (Nev. 2024). “At the tirne, NRS 176A.290(2) required the stipulation of the prosecuting attorney before a district court could assign an eligible defendant to veterans court if the offense charged or the defendant's prior convictions involved the use or threatened use of force or violence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290(3) — 4 cases
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024). “” 68 It concluded that “a court’s deci- sion to assign a defendant to the veterans court program is a sentencing decision—it is a statutorily approved alternative to entering a judgment of conviction and imposing a term of incarceration.”
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 176A.290(4) — 4 cases
State v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 432 P.3d 154 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
Engle (julie) v. Dist. Ct. (state) (Crim.), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30 (Nev. 2026). “240 (analogous provision regarding substance use disorder treatment program); NRS 176A.290 (analogous provision regarding veterans court).”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018). “: NRS 176A.290 (2014) authorizes district courts to assign certain eligible defendants to a veterans court program.”
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.