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).
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.”
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, No. 69981 (Nev. May 3, 2016).
“380 was subsequently replaced in 1985 by NRS 34.710. 2 Appellant's motion for stay is denied.”
Lowe (Lanalisikov) v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 63107 (Nev. June 12, 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.”
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.