NRS
213.1517 Actions by Chief and Board after determination of existence of
probable cause to continue detention of paroled prisoner.
1. Where the inquiring officer has
determined that there is probable cause for a hearing by the Board, the Chief
may, after consideration of the case and pending the next meeting of the Board:
(a) Release the arrested parolee again upon
parole;
(b) Order the parolee to be placed in residential
confinement in accordance with the provisions of NRS 213.15193, 213.15195 and 213.15198; or
(c) Suspend his or her parole and return the
parolee to confinement.
2. The Chief shall take whichever action
under subsection 1 the Chief deems appropriate within:
(a) Fifteen days if the prisoner was paroled by the
Board.
(b) Thirty days if the prisoner was paroled by
the authority of another state and is under supervision in this state pursuant
to NRS 213.215. This paragraph does not
apply to a parolee who is retaken by an officer of the sending state.
3. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, if a determination has been made that probable cause exists for
the continued detention of a paroled prisoner, the Board shall consider the
prisoner’s case within 60 days after his or her return to the custody of the
Department of Corrections or his or her placement in residential confinement
pursuant to subsection 1.
4. If probable cause for continued
detention of a paroled prisoner is based on conduct which is the subject of a
new criminal charge, the Board may consider the prisoner’s case under the
provisions of subsection 3 or defer consideration until not more than 60 days
after his or her return to the custody of the Department of Corrections following
the final adjudication of the new criminal charge.
(Added to NRS by 1975,
197; A 1981,
480; 1983,
270; 1991,
313; 1993,
50; 1995,
640; 2001,
2370; 2001
Special Session, 204; 2003,
427)
Notes of Decisions
In Re: Application of Smith (breck), 2022 NV 16 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 24× “In January 2021, Smith filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that under NRS 213.1517, the Parole Board exceeded its authority by immediately returning Smith to NDOC's custody but deferring the parole revocation hearing until he pleaded guilty on the…”
Coleman v. State, 2014 NV 22 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “NRS 213.1517(1); NRS 213.1519(1). Although the conditions of probation or parole may be similar to conditions of lifetime supervision,2 the conditions are not what place a probationer and parolee under a sentence of imprisonment.”
Reed v. Johnson (D. Nev. 2020).
“6 In this petition, Reed alleges that he was not afforded due process in the parole-violation 7 hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment and NRS 213.1517(3). He claims that the parole 8 revocation improperly forfeited his statutory good-time credits under NRS 209.”
Hall (Shade) v. Warden (Nev. 2013).
“1513; NRS 213.1517. Because the district court did not consider whether appellant was afforded the due process protections delineated in Morrissey, we reverse and remand for the district court to resolve the allegations set forth in appellant's habeas petition.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1517(1) — 1 case
Coleman v. State, 2014 NV 22 (Nev. 2014).
“NRS 213.1517(1); NRS 213.1519(1). Although the conditions of probation or parole may be similar to conditions of lifetime supervision,2 the conditions are not what place a probationer and parolee under a sentence of imprisonment.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1517(3) — 3 cases
In Re: Application of Smith (breck), 2022 NV 16 (Nev. 2022).
“In January 2021, Smith filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that under NRS 213.1517, the Parole Board exceeded its authority by immediately returning Smith to NDOC's custody but deferring the parole revocation hearing until he pleaded guilty on the…”
Reed v. Johnson (D. Nev. 2020).
“6 In this petition, Reed alleges that he was not afforded due process in the parole-violation 7 hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment and NRS 213.1517(3). He claims that the parole 8 revocation improperly forfeited his statutory good-time credits under NRS 209.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 213.1517(4) — 2 cases
In Re: Application of Smith (breck), 2022 NV 16 (Nev. 2022).
“In January 2021, Smith filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that under NRS 213.1517, the Parole Board exceeded its authority by immediately returning Smith to NDOC's custody but deferring the parole revocation hearing until he pleaded guilty on the…”
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.