NRS
34.370 Application for writ; verification required; contents;
supporting documents.
1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus
must be verified by the petitioner or the petitioner’s counsel. If the petition
is verified by counsel, counsel shall also verify that the petitioner
personally authorized counsel to commence the action.
2. A verified petition for issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus must specify that the petitioner is imprisoned or
restrained of the petitioner’s liberty, the officer or other person by whom the
petitioner is confined or restrained, and the place where the petitioner is
confined, naming all the parties if they are known, or describing them if they
are not known.
3. If the petitioner claims that the
imprisonment is illegal, the petitioner must state facts which show that the
restraint or detention is illegal.
4. If the petition requests relief from a
judgment of conviction or sentence in a criminal case, the petition must
identify the proceedings in which the petitioner was convicted, give the date
of entry of the final judgment and set forth which constitutional rights of the
petitioner were violated and the acts constituting violations of those rights.
Affidavits, records or other evidence supporting the allegations in the petition
must be attached unless the petition recites the cause for failure to attach
these materials. The petition must identify any previous proceeding in state or
federal court initiated by the petitioner to secure relief from the
petitioner’s judgment of conviction or sentence. Argument, citations and other
supporting documents are unnecessary.
[2:93:1862; B § 350; BH § 3672; C § 3745; RL § 6227;
NCL § 11376]—(NRS A 1985,
1233; 1987,
1215; 2023,
1618)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases, 1977–2016 · leading case:
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002).
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 2× “9 NRS 34.370(3); see also NRS 34.735. 10 See also NRS 34.”
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006).
“5 This court expressly determined that such a petition must satisfy the pleading requirements of NRS 34.370(3) and NRS 34.735, by providing specific facts in support of the claims.”
Ford v. Warden, 901 P.2d 123 (Nev. 1995).
“NRS 34.370(4) provides in part: “Affidavits, records or other evidence supporting the allegations in the petition must be attached unless the petition recites the cause for failure to attach these materials.”
Miles v. State, 91 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2004).
“2d 153 (1977) (construing the language in NRS 34.370, the general provision governing all habeas corpus petitions, which is identical to the language contained in NRS 34.”
Pangallo v. State, 930 P.2d 100 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 34.370(3) requires a habeas petitioner to “state facts which show that the restraint or detention is illegal.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. McKinney, 565 P.2d 649 (Nev. 1977).
“1 In an unpublished order, filed December 6, 1976, we dismissed the appeal because McKinney’s habeas petition was not verified as required by NRS 34.370(3).”
Sheriff v. Chumphol, 603 P.2d 690 (Nev. 1979).
“In addition, the petition was not verified as required by NRS 34.370(3). An unverified petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable.”
Woods v. State, 588 P.2d 1030 (Nev. 1979).
“” (1) In an unpublished order, filed November 10, 1976, we dismissed the appeal because appellant’s habeas petition was not verified as required by NRS 34.370(3). (2) Appellant again petitioned the district court for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus following the dismissal of…”
Sheriff v. Scalio, 616 P.2d 402 (Nev. 1980).
“Respondent’s habeas petition was not verified by oath or affirmation as clearly required by NRS 34.370(3). Therefore, the petition was not cognizable in the district court.”
Sheriff, Clark Cty. v. Arvey, 560 P.2d 153 (Nev. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Arvey’s habeas petition was not “verified by the oath or affirmation of the party making the application,” as required by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.370 (3). Therefore, the petition was not cognizable in the district court; accordingly, we, sua sponte, reverse and instruct the lower…”
Bernier v. Sheriff, 569 P.2d 406 (Nev. 1977).
“NRS 34.370(2). Affirmed. NRS 205.275 provides, in pertinent part: “1.”
Lera v. Sheriff, 568 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1977).
“9874, we dismissed Linda Lee Lera’s previous appeal from the order denying her petition because the petition did not comply with the requirements imposed by NRS 34.370(2) and NRS 34.-370(3). *500 Thereafter, Ms.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.370(2) — 2 cases
Bernier v. Sheriff, 569 P.2d 406 (Nev. 1977).
“NRS 34.370(2). Affirmed. NRS 205.275 provides, in pertinent part: “1.”
Lera v. Sheriff, 568 P.2d 581 (Nev. 1977).
“9874, we dismissed Linda Lee Lera’s previous appeal from the order denying her petition because the petition did not comply with the requirements imposed by NRS 34.370(2) and NRS 34.-370(3). *500 Thereafter, Ms.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.370(3) — 7 cases
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002).
“9 NRS 34.370(3); see also NRS 34.735. 10 See also NRS 34.”
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006).
“5 This court expressly determined that such a petition must satisfy the pleading requirements of NRS 34.370(3) and NRS 34.735, by providing specific facts in support of the claims.”
Pangallo v. State, 930 P.2d 100 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 34.370(3) requires a habeas petitioner to “state facts which show that the restraint or detention is illegal.”
Sheriff, Clark Cnty. v. McKinney, 565 P.2d 649 (Nev. 1977).
“1 In an unpublished order, filed December 6, 1976, we dismissed the appeal because McKinney’s habeas petition was not verified as required by NRS 34.370(3).”
Sheriff v. Chumphol, 603 P.2d 690 (Nev. 1979).
“In addition, the petition was not verified as required by NRS 34.370(3). An unverified petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.370(4) — 3 cases
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002).
“9 NRS 34.370(3); see also NRS 34.735. 10 See also NRS 34.”
Ford v. Warden, 901 P.2d 123 (Nev. 1995).
“NRS 34.370(4) provides in part: “Affidavits, records or other evidence supporting the allegations in the petition must be attached unless the petition recites the cause for failure to attach these materials.”
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.