NRS
34.700 Time for filing; waiver and consent of accused respecting date
of trial.
1. Except as provided in subsection 3, a
pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on alleged lack of probable
cause or otherwise challenging the court’s right or jurisdiction to proceed to
the trial of a criminal charge may not be considered unless:
(a) The petition and all supporting documents are
filed within 21 days after the first appearance of the accused in the district
court; and
(b) The petition contains a statement that the
accused:
(1) Waives the 60-day limitation for
bringing an accused to trial; or
(2) If the petition is not decided within
15 days before the date set for trial, consents that the court may, without
notice or hearing, continue the trial indefinitely or to a date designated by
the court.
2. The arraignment and entry of a plea by
the accused must not be continued to avoid the requirement that a pretrial
petition be filed within the period specified in subsection 1.
3. The court may extend, for good cause,
the time to file a petition. Good cause shall be deemed to exist if the
transcript of the preliminary hearing or of the proceedings before the grand
jury is not available within 14 days after the accused’s initial appearance and
the court shall grant an ex parte application to extend the time for filing a
petition. All other applications may be made only after appropriate notice has
been given to the prosecuting agency.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
1350; A 1981,
506; 1985,
1233; 2023,
1618)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case:
Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999).
Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999).
· cites it 6× “See NRS 34.700; NRS 178.556(1). Further, the habeas petition was not deficient, as appellant claims.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Because the district court had jurisdiction to consider Rugamas’ pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus by virtue of NRS 34.700 and Rugamas’ petition did not challenge the district court’s jurisdiction to proceed, prohibition is not an appropriate avenue for extraordinary…”
State v. Robles-Nieves, 306 P.3d 399 (Nev. 2013).
“In this, the *545 State equates the motion with a pretrial habeas petition, which by statute (NRS 34.700(l)(b)) must include a waiver of speedy-trial rights.”
Burns (Leonard) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 8× “700(2) provides that "[t]he arraignment and entry of a plea by the accused must not be continued to avoid the requirement that a pretrial petition be filed within the period specified in subsection 1." Here, the transcripts from Burns's first three appearances clearly…”
Williams (Gabrial) v. State (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “3d 887, 896 (2013), but the proper application of NRS 34.700 is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Gould v. Lombardo (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “”!” 4 Conclusion 5 In sum, the court concludes that Gould’s petition is wholly unexhausted in state court and 6}| that this action is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “gr4 7771 habeas corpus by virtue of NRS 34.700 and Rugamas' petition did not challenge the district court's jurisdiction to proceed, prohibition is not an appropriate avenue for extraordinary relief.”
Moultrie v. State (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 2× “NRS 34.700 (defendant may challenge the commitment to district court by filing a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus within 21 days of the first appearance in district court).”
Hooper (David) v. Warden (Nev. 2016).
“ite Pine County District Attorney Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk 2 Even construing the petition as seeking pretrial relief, we note that relief would not be warranted because (1) a challenge asserting a lack of probable cause must be filed in a pretrial petition…”
Brown (Roger) v. the Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2016).
“First, because a probable- cause determination may be challenged in the district court by filing a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see NRS 34.700, petitioner has an adequate remedy at law to challenge the probable-cause determination that militates against relief…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.700(1) — 2 cases
Burns (Leonard) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019).
“700(2) provides that "[t]he arraignment and entry of a plea by the accused must not be continued to avoid the requirement that a pretrial petition be filed within the period specified in subsection 1." Here, the transcripts from Burns's first three appearances clearly…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.700(1)(a) — 4 cases
Burns (Leonard) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019).
“700(2) provides that "[t]he arraignment and entry of a plea by the accused must not be continued to avoid the requirement that a pretrial petition be filed within the period specified in subsection 1." Here, the transcripts from Burns's first three appearances clearly…”
Hooper (David) v. Warden (Nev. 2016).
“ite Pine County District Attorney Attorney General/Ely White Pine County Clerk 2 Even construing the petition as seeking pretrial relief, we note that relief would not be warranted because (1) a challenge asserting a lack of probable cause must be filed in a pretrial petition…”
Williams (Gabrial) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“3d 887, 896 (2013), but the proper application of NRS 34.700 is a question of law that we review de novo.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.700(1)(b) — 2 cases
Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999).
“See NRS 34.700; NRS 178.556(1). Further, the habeas petition was not deficient, as appellant claims.”
Gould v. Lombardo (D. Nev. 2020).
“”!” 4 Conclusion 5 In sum, the court concludes that Gould’s petition is wholly unexhausted in state court and 6}| that this action is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.700(2) — 1 case
Burns (Leonard) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2019).
“700(2) provides that "[t]he arraignment and entry of a plea by the accused must not be continued to avoid the requirement that a pretrial petition be filed within the period specified in subsection 1." Here, the transcripts from Burns's first three appearances clearly…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.700(l)(b) — 2 cases
Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999).
“See NRS 34.700; NRS 178.556(1). Further, the habeas petition was not deficient, as appellant claims.”
State v. Robles-Nieves, 306 P.3d 399 (Nev. 2013).
“In this, the *545 State equates the motion with a pretrial habeas petition, which by statute (NRS 34.700(l)(b)) must include a waiver of speedy-trial rights.”
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.