NRS
205.0835 Penalties.
1. Unless a greater penalty is imposed by
a specific statute and unless the provisions of NRS 205.08345 apply under the
circumstances, a person who commits theft in violation of any provision of NRS 205.0821 to 205.0835, inclusive, shall be punished
pursuant to the provisions of this section.
2. If the value of the property or
services involved in the theft:
(a) Is less than $1,200, the person who committed
the theft is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Is $1,200 or more but less than $5,000, the
person who committed the theft is guilty of a category D felony and shall be
punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
(c) Is $5,000 or more but less than $25,000, the
person who committed the theft is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished
as provided in NRS 193.130.
(d) Is $25,000 or more but less than $100,000,
the person who committed the theft is guilty of a category B felony and shall
be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less
than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and by a fine of not
more than $10,000.
(e) Is $100,000 or more, the person who committed
the theft is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and
a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and by a fine of not more than
$15,000.
3. In addition to any other penalty, the
court shall order the person who committed the theft to pay restitution.
(Added to NRS by 1989,
1205; A 1995,
1216; 1997,
340; 2007,
683; 2011,
162; 2019,
4427)
FORGERY, COUNTERFEITING AND ISSUANCE OF CHECK OR DRAFT WITH
INTENT TO DEFRAUD
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 3× “0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
Walch v. State, 909 P.2d 1184 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “NRS 205.0835. Walch argues that funds deposited in the two accounts became her and Nell's joint legal property and that she therefore had lawful authority to withdraw them and use *1188 them as she wished.”
Martinez v. State, 88 P.3d 825 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Although appellant was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the papers received from her.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
Ocegueda v. State of Nevada (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835 (5). “The amount involved in a theft shall be 23 deemed to be the highest value, by any reasonable standard, of the property or services which are 1 obtained.”
Robinson (maurice) v. State (Crim.) (Nev. 2026).
“NRS 205.0835. When Robinson committed his crinies, a theft of less than $650 was a misderneanor, a theft of a value equal to or more than $650 but less than $3,500 was a category C felony, and a theft valued at $3,500 or more was a category B felony.”
Villa (Richard) v. State (Nev. 2013).
“2d 282, 284 (1996), his sentence falls within the parameters of that statute, see NRS 205.0835(4), and we are not convinced that the sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense as to shock the conscience, see Harmelin v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835(1) — 3 cases
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
“0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
Ibarra (gabriel) Vs. State, 2018 NV 70 (Nev. 2018).
“0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835(2) — 1 case
Ibarra v. State, 426 P.3d 16 (Nev. 2018).
“0821 through NRS 205.0835, it did not repeal its older larceny statutes and, in fact, recognized that the penalties specified in a "specific statute" may apply if those penalties are greater than those specified in the theft statutes.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835(3) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835(4) — 1 case
Villa (Richard) v. State (Nev. 2013).
“2d 282, 284 (1996), his sentence falls within the parameters of that statute, see NRS 205.0835(4), and we are not convinced that the sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense as to shock the conscience, see Harmelin v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.0835(5) — 1 case
Martinez v. State, 88 P.3d 825 (Nev. 2004).
“Although appellant was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the papers received from her.”
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.