Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.433 (2026)

Credits for offender sentenced on or before June 30, 1969

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 209.433  Credits for offender sentenced on or before June 30, 1969.

      1.  Every offender who was sentenced to prison on or before June 30, 1969, who has no serious infraction of the regulations of the Department, the terms and conditions of his or her residential confinement, or the laws of the State recorded against the offender, and who performs in a faithful, orderly and peaceable manner the duties assigned to the offender, must be allowed for his or her term a deduction of 2 months in each of the first 2 years, 4 months in each of the next 2 years, and 5 months in each of the remaining years of the term, and pro rata for any part of a year where the sentence is for more or less than a year.

      2.  In addition to the credits for good behavior provided for in subsection 1, the Board shall adopt regulations allowing credits for offenders whose diligence in labor or study merits the credits and for offenders who donate their blood for charitable purposes. The regulations must provide that an offender is entitled to the following credits for educational achievement:

      (a) For earning a general educational development certificate or an equivalent document, 30 days.

      (b) For earning a high school diploma, 60 days.

      (c) For earning an associate degree, 90 days.

      3.  Each offender is entitled to the deductions allowed by this section if the offender has satisfied the conditions of subsection 1 or 2 as determined by the Director.

      (Added to NRS by 1977, 851; A 1983, 723; 1985, 686; 1989, 385; 1991, 780; 1993, 134; 1999, 134; 2003, 1366; 2013, 3287)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2010 · leading case: Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010).
Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). “041 ; Nev. Rev.Stat. §§ 209.433, .447; N.H.Rev.”
Cooper v. Sumner, 672 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Nev. 1987). · cites it 4× “NRS § 209.433(1). Further, there is no protectible liberty interest in earning Work Time credit.”
Neal v. Hargrave, 770 F. Supp. 553 (D. Nev. 1991). · cites it 2× “1987), we addressed the same issue, namely, whether Nevada has created a due process liberty interest in credits under Nevada Revised Statute § 209.433(1), § 209.433(3), or Nevada Department of Prisons Administrative Regu *558 lation 714(111).”
Demosthenes v. Williams, 637 P.2d 1203 (Nev. 1981). “The issue confronting us in this appeal by the State is whether good time credit provisions of NRS 209.433 apply to the parole eligibility of persons convicted under NRS 200.”
Williams v. Wolff, 497 F. Supp. 122 (D. Nev. 1980). “The record does not show how much good time credit had been earned, but even if he was entitled to the maximum possible, his sentence would not have been satisfied.”
Hayward v. Marshall (9th Cir. 2010). “041 ; Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 209.433 , .447; N.H. Rev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.433(1) — 2 cases
Cooper v. Sumner, 672 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Nev. 1987). “NRS § 209.433(1). Further, there is no protectible liberty interest in earning Work Time credit.”
Neal v. Hargrave, 770 F. Supp. 553 (D. Nev. 1991). “1987), we addressed the same issue, namely, whether Nevada has created a due process liberty interest in credits under Nevada Revised Statute § 209.433(1), § 209.433(3), or Nevada Department of Prisons Administrative Regu *558 lation 714(111).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.433(3) — 2 cases
Cooper v. Sumner, 672 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Nev. 1987). “NRS § 209.433(1). Further, there is no protectible liberty interest in earning Work Time credit.”
Neal v. Hargrave, 770 F. Supp. 553 (D. Nev. 1991). “1987), we addressed the same issue, namely, whether Nevada has created a due process liberty interest in credits under Nevada Revised Statute § 209.433(1), § 209.433(3), or Nevada Department of Prisons Administrative Regu *558 lation 714(111).”
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.