Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 34 - WRITS; PETITION TO ESTABLISH FACTUAL INNOCENCE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.710 (2026)

Limitations on submission and consideration of pretrial petition

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.710  Limitations on submission and consideration of pretrial petition.

      1.  A district court shall not consider any pretrial petition for habeas corpus:

      (a) 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 unless a petition is filed in accordance with NRS 34.700.

      (b) Based on a ground which the petitioner could have included as a ground for relief in any prior petition for habeas corpus or other petition for extraordinary relief.

      2.  If an application is made to the Court of Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus and the application is entertained by the Court of Appeals, and thereafter denied, the person making the application may not submit thereafter an application to the district judge of the district in which the applicant is held in custody, nor to any other district judge in any other judicial district of the State, premised upon the illegality of the same charge upon which the applicant is held in custody.

      3.  If an application is made to a justice of the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and the application is entertained by the justice or the Supreme Court, and thereafter denied, the person making the application may not submit thereafter an application to the Court of Appeals, the district judge of the district in which the applicant is held in custody, nor to any other district judge in any other judicial district of the State, premised upon the illegality of the same charge upon which the applicant is held in custody.

      [3:93:1862; A 1953, 257]—(NRS A 1959, 17; 1971, 235; 1973, 502; 1977, 768, 1350, 1352; 1979, 312; 1981, 507; 1985, 1234; 1987, 1216; 1991, 78; 2013, 1735)

Petitions for Postconviction Relief

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Castillo v. State, 792 P.2d 1133 (Nev. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Castillo v. State, 792 P.2d 1133 (Nev. 1990). “See NRS 34.710; NRS 34.815. Appellant suggests that his petition for transfer back to the juvenile court raises issues which appellant’s counsel could have raised in a motion for reconsideration of the certification order in the juvenile court.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 305 P.3d 887 (Nev. 2013). “700; NRS 34.710. We reject that argument for three reasons.”
Mazzan v. State, 863 P.2d 1035 (Nev. 1993). “380 was replaced by NRS 34.710, which has since been amended.”
Washington v. State, 756 P.2d 1191 (Nev. 1988). “See NRS 34.710(3) and 34.815(1). The legislature did not, however, make any similar amendments to NRS Chapter 177.”
Washington v. State, 756 P.2d 1191 (Nev. 1988). “See NRS 34.710(3) and 34.815(1). The legislature did not, however, make any similar amendments to NRS Chapter 177.”
Hobson (Tony) v. State (Nev. 2016). “380 was subsequently replaced in 1985 by NRS 34.710. 2 Appellant's motion for stay is denied.”
Lowe (Lanalsikov) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013). “700; NRS 34.710. Accordingly, we ORDER the petitions DENIED.”
Lowe (Lanalisikov) v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2013). “We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in these matters.”
Lowe (Lanalisikov) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013). “700; NRS 34.710. Accordingly, we ORDER the petitions DENIED.”
Lowe (Lanalisikov) v. Dist. Ct. (Clark Co. Pub. Def. Off.) (Nev. 2013). “700; NRS 34.710. Accordingly, we ORDER the petitions DENIED.”
Rugamas v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2013). “700; NRS 34.710. We reject that argument for three reasons.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.710(3) — 2 cases
Washington v. State, 756 P.2d 1191 (Nev. 1988). “See NRS 34.710(3) and 34.815(1). The legislature did not, however, make any similar amendments to NRS Chapter 177.”
Washington v. State, 756 P.2d 1191 (Nev. 1988). “See NRS 34.710(3) and 34.815(1). The legislature did not, however, make any similar amendments to NRS Chapter 177.”
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.