Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 213 - PARDONS AND PAROLES; REMISSIONS OF FINES AND COMMUTATIONS OF PUNISHMENTS

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214

Evaluation of certain prisoners by Department of Corrections before parole hearing; Director of Department to establish procedure for assessment of prisoners; immunity; regulations

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 213.1214  Evaluation of certain prisoners by Department of Corrections before parole hearing; Director of Department to establish procedure for assessment of prisoners; immunity; regulations.

      1.  The Department of Corrections shall assess each prisoner who has been convicted of a sexual offense to determine the prisoner’s risk to reoffend in a sexual manner using a currently accepted standard of assessment. The completed assessment must include, without limitation, a determination of the prisoner’s level of risk to reoffend in a sexual manner, including, without limitation, whether the prisoner is a high risk to reoffend in a sexual manner for the purposes of subsection 3 of NRS 213.1215. The Director shall ensure a completed assessment is provided to the Board before, but not sooner than 120 days before, a scheduled parole hearing.

      2.  The Director shall:

      (a) Ensure that any employee of the Department who completes an assessment pursuant to subsection 1 is properly trained to assess the risk of an offender to reoffend in a sexual manner.

      (b) Establish a procedure to:

             (1) Ensure the accuracy of each completed assessment provided to the Board; and

             (2) Correct any error occurring in a completed assessment provided to the Board.

      3.  This section does not create a right in any prisoner to be assessed or reassessed more frequently than the prisoner’s regularly scheduled parole hearings or under a current or previous standard of assessment and does not restrict the Department from conducting additional assessments of a prisoner if such assessments may assist the Board in determining whether parole should be granted or continued. No cause of action may be brought against the State, its political subdivisions, or the agencies, boards, commissions, departments, officers or employees of the State or its political subdivisions for assessing, not assessing or considering or relying on an assessment of a prisoner, if such decisions or actions are made or conducted in compliance with the procedures set forth in this section.

      4.  The Board shall consider an assessment prepared pursuant to this section before determining whether to grant or revoke the parole of a person convicted of a sexual offense.

      5.  The Board may adopt by regulation the manner in which the Board will consider an assessment prepared pursuant to this section in conjunction with the standards adopted by the Board pursuant to NRS 213.10885.

      6.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Director” means the Director of the Department of Corrections.

      (b) “Reoffend in a sexual manner” means to commit a sexual offense.

      (Added to NRS by 1997, 2506; A 1999, 108; 2001, 1640, 2799; 2001 Special Session, 201; 2003, 289, 306, 1392; 2005, 2878; 2011, 2132; 2013, 249, 1170; 2015, 903, 1447; 2023, 83, 1427)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev · cites it 34× “: In this proper person appeal and petition for rehearing, we interpret several provisions of NRS 213.1214, which provides that sex offenders must receive certification from a Psychological Review Panel (the Psych Panel) before they can be released on parole.”
Stockmeier v. Nevada Department of Corrections Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev · cites it 4× “OPINION Per Curiam: In this proper person appeal, we decide whether prisoners have standing to file suit regarding violations of the open meeting law, NRS Chapter 241, that occur before and during Psychological Review Panel hearings under NRS 213.1214. Appellant Robert…”
Witherow v. State Board of Parole Commissioners (2007) nev · cites it 4× “See NRS 213.1214. 122 Nev. at 390-92, 135 P.3d at 223-25 .”
Coles v. Bisbee (2018) nev · cites it 9× “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214 's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
State Ex Rel. Board of Parole Commissioners v. Morrow (2011) nev · cites it 2× “This reclassification precluded Morrow from being released pursuant to NRS 213.1214(1). Due to the new assessment and other expressed concerns, in April 2007, the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners (the Parole Board) reconsidered its decision to release Morrow on parole.”
Douglas v. State (2008) nev · cites it 58× “: In this proper person appeal we decide whether NRS 213.1214 provides the State Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) with the authority to require Psychological Panel (Psych Panel) certification prior to a prisoner’s release on parole from a sentence involving a…”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev · cites it 14× “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev · cites it 14× “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
Johnson v. Williams (2020) nvd · cites it 5× “The Board 23 therefore considered factors, including that the “NRS 213.1214 assessment result indicates an 24 above-average risk to reoffend,” the victim was 16 years old at the time of the offense, Plaintiff 25 1 had numerous prior property referrals as a juvenile, and…”
Bailey v. Nevada Parole Board (2022) nvd · cites it 2× “14 See NRS 213.1214(2). 15 Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a § 1983 claim to challenge the alleged procedural 16 defects in the parole process and the plaintiff’s belief that the board members lied.”
Lepley (Brian) v. Director (2017) nev “1245 and NRS 213.1214. 2 We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition.”
McCormick v. Bisbee (2017) nev “NRS 213.1214(3) (providing that no cause of action regarding parole assessments may be raised if the actions comply with the statutory provisions).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(1) — 8 cases
Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “: In this proper person appeal and petition for rehearing, we interpret several provisions of NRS 213.1214, which provides that sex offenders must receive certification from a Psychological Review Panel (the Psych Panel) before they can be released on parole.”
Witherow v. State Board of Parole Commissioners (2007) nev “See NRS 213.1214. 122 Nev. at 390-92, 135 P.3d at 223-25 .”
State Ex Rel. Board of Parole Commissioners v. Morrow (2011) nev “This reclassification precluded Morrow from being released pursuant to NRS 213.1214(1). Due to the new assessment and other expressed concerns, in April 2007, the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners (the Parole Board) reconsidered its decision to release Morrow on parole.”
Stockmeier v. Nevada Department of Corrections Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “OPINION Per Curiam: In this proper person appeal, we decide whether prisoners have standing to file suit regarding violations of the open meeting law, NRS Chapter 241, that occur before and during Psychological Review Panel hearings under NRS 213.1214. Appellant Robert…”
Coles v. Bisbee (2018) nev “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214 's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(2) — 3 cases
Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “: In this proper person appeal and petition for rehearing, we interpret several provisions of NRS 213.1214, which provides that sex offenders must receive certification from a Psychological Review Panel (the Psych Panel) before they can be released on parole.”
Douglas v. State (2008) nev “: In this proper person appeal we decide whether NRS 213.1214 provides the State Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) with the authority to require Psychological Panel (Psych Panel) certification prior to a prisoner’s release on parole from a sentence involving a…”
Bailey v. Nevada Parole Board (2022) nvd “14 See NRS 213.1214(2). 15 Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a § 1983 claim to challenge the alleged procedural 16 defects in the parole process and the plaintiff’s belief that the board members lied.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(3) — 5 cases
Coles v. Bisbee (2018) nev “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214 's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
COLES (BRENT) VS. BISBEE (2018) nev “We conclude that the use of the Static-99R assessment comports with NRS 213.1214's assessment requirements and that changes to parole procedures do not constitute an ex post facto violation unless they create a significant risk of prolonging the inmate's incarceration, which is…”
Douglas v. State (2008) nev “: In this proper person appeal we decide whether NRS 213.1214 provides the State Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) with the authority to require Psychological Panel (Psych Panel) certification prior to a prisoner’s release on parole from a sentence involving a…”
McCormick v. Bisbee (2017) nev “NRS 213.1214(3) (providing that no cause of action regarding parole assessments may be raised if the actions comply with the statutory provisions).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(4) — 2 cases
Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “: In this proper person appeal and petition for rehearing, we interpret several provisions of NRS 213.1214, which provides that sex offenders must receive certification from a Psychological Review Panel (the Psych Panel) before they can be released on parole.”
Douglas v. State (2008) nev “: In this proper person appeal we decide whether NRS 213.1214 provides the State Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) with the authority to require Psychological Panel (Psych Panel) certification prior to a prisoner’s release on parole from a sentence involving a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1214(5) — 2 cases
Stockmeier v. Psychological Review Panel (2006) nev “: In this proper person appeal and petition for rehearing, we interpret several provisions of NRS 213.1214, which provides that sex offenders must receive certification from a Psychological Review Panel (the Psych Panel) before they can be released on parole.”
Douglas v. State (2008) nev “: In this proper person appeal we decide whether NRS 213.1214 provides the State Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) with the authority to require Psychological Panel (Psych Panel) certification prior to a prisoner’s release on parole from a sentence involving a…”
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.