NRS
34.724 Persons who may file petition; no filing fee required; effect of
filing.
1. Any person convicted of a crime and
under sentence of death or imprisonment who claims that the conviction was
obtained, or that the sentence was imposed, in violation of the Constitution of
the United States or the Constitution or laws of this State, or who, after
exhausting all available administrative remedies, claims that the time the
person has served pursuant to the judgment of conviction has been improperly
computed may file a petition to obtain relief from the judgment of conviction
or sentence or to challenge the computation of time that the person has served.
A person must not be required to pay a filing fee to file such a petition.
2. Such a petition:
(a) Is not a substitute for and does not affect
any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the
remedy of direct review of the sentence or conviction.
(b) Comprehends and takes the place of all other
common-law, statutory or other remedies which have been available for
challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction or sentence, and must be
used exclusively in place of them.
(c) Is the only remedy available to an
incarcerated person to challenge the computation of time that the person has
served pursuant to a judgment of conviction, after all available administrative
remedies have been exhausted.
3. For the purposes of this section, a
motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere
pursuant to NRS 176.165 that is made
after sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended is a remedy
which is incident to the proceedings in the trial court if:
(a) The person has not filed a prior motion to
withdraw the plea and has not filed a prior petition;
(b) The motion is filed within 1 year after the
date on which the person was convicted, unless the person pleads specific facts
demonstrating that some impediment external to the defense precluded bringing
the motion earlier;
(c) At the time the person files the motion to
withdraw the plea, the person is not incarcerated for the charge for which the
person entered the plea; and
(d) The motion is not barred by the doctrine of
laches. A motion filed more than 5 years after the date on which the person was
convicted creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State on the
basis of laches.
4. The court shall not appoint counsel to
represent a person for the purpose of subsection 3.
(Added to NRS by 1991,
75; A 2017,
370; 2019,
3008; 2023,
1619)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
186
cases (
30 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
Trujillo v. State
Trujillo v. State (2013)
nev · cites it 10×
“6, § 6(1); NRS 34.724(1); Jackson v. State, 115 Nev.”
GONZALES (MELVIN) VS. STATE (2021)
nev · cites it 6×
“" NRS 34.724(1). This remedy was made exclusive, SUPRENK COURT OF NEVADA 5 10) 1947A 4530.”
Edwards v. State (1996)
nev · cites it 5×
“*707 NRS 34.724(2) (emphasis added) provides in part: Such a petition [for a writ of habeas corpus filed after conviction]: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not affect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the…”
McConnell v. State (2009)
nev · cites it 3×
“” NRS 34.724(2)(a). Under the first exception, this court has recognized four remedies that are incident to the proceedings in the trial court: (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence, (2) a motion to modify a sentence, (3) a post-conviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea,…”
Means v. State (2004)
nev · cites it 2×
“…(1994). 50 Id. 51 Id.; see also Mazzan v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1070 , 863 P.2d 1035, 1036 (1993). 52 NRS 34.724. 53 NRS 34.726.”
Rippo v. State (2018)
nev · cites it 2×
“In the context of postconviction counsel, we conclude that the prejudice prong requires a showing that counsel's deficient performance prevented the petitioner from establishing "that the conviction was obtained, or that the sentence was imposed, in violation of the Constitution…”
Griffin v. State (2006)
nev · cites it 5×
“The language of NRS 34.724 also suggests that a claim for pre-sentence credit was never intended to be interpreted as a challenge to the computation of time served.”
Hathaway v. State (2003)
nev
“Finally, Hathaway argued that the procedural time-bar should not apply to his habeas corpus petition because he filed a petition pursuant to NRS 34.360. Because Hathaway challenged the validity of his judgment of conviction, Hathaway’s petition was properly construed to he a…”
Steven W. Collier v. Bob Bayer (2005)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“a Supreme Court specifically disapproved of the very tactic Collier is attempting to use here: 70 We have observed that defendants are increasingly filing in district court documents entitled "motion to correct illegal sentence" or "motion to modify sentence" to challenge the…”
Molina v. State (2004)
nev
“NRS 34.724. NRS 34.735(6) states in relevant part: If your petition contains a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim will operate to waive the attorney-client privilege for the proceeding in which you claim your counsel was ineffective.”
Pangallo v. State (1996)
nev · cites it 4×
“2 NRS 34.724(2) provides that a post-conviction petition for habeas relief: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not aifect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the sentence or conviction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(1) — 57 cases
Rippo v. State (2018)
nev
“In the context of postconviction counsel, we conclude that the prejudice prong requires a showing that counsel's deficient performance prevented the petitioner from establishing "that the conviction was obtained, or that the sentence was imposed, in violation of the Constitution…”
Means v. State (2004)
nev
“…(1994). 50 Id. 51 Id.; see also Mazzan v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1070 , 863 P.2d 1035, 1036 (1993). 52 NRS 34.724. 53 NRS 34.726.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(2) — 10 cases
Edwards v. State (1996)
nev
“*707 NRS 34.724(2) (emphasis added) provides in part: Such a petition [for a writ of habeas corpus filed after conviction]: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not affect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the…”
Pangallo v. State (1996)
nev
“2 NRS 34.724(2) provides that a post-conviction petition for habeas relief: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not aifect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the sentence or conviction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(2)(a) — 19 cases
McConnell v. State (2009)
nev
“” NRS 34.724(2)(a). Under the first exception, this court has recognized four remedies that are incident to the proceedings in the trial court: (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence, (2) a motion to modify a sentence, (3) a post-conviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea,…”
Edwards v. State (1996)
nev
“*707 NRS 34.724(2) (emphasis added) provides in part: Such a petition [for a writ of habeas corpus filed after conviction]: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not affect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the…”
Pangallo v. State (1996)
nev
“2 NRS 34.724(2) provides that a post-conviction petition for habeas relief: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not aifect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the sentence or conviction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(2)(b) — 54 cases
Edwards v. State (1996)
nev
“*707 NRS 34.724(2) (emphasis added) provides in part: Such a petition [for a writ of habeas corpus filed after conviction]: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not affect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the…”
McConnell v. State (2009)
nev
“” NRS 34.724(2)(a). Under the first exception, this court has recognized four remedies that are incident to the proceedings in the trial court: (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence, (2) a motion to modify a sentence, (3) a post-conviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea,…”
Hathaway v. State (2003)
nev
“Finally, Hathaway argued that the procedural time-bar should not apply to his habeas corpus petition because he filed a petition pursuant to NRS 34.360. Because Hathaway challenged the validity of his judgment of conviction, Hathaway’s petition was properly construed to he a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(2)(c) — 29 cases
Griffin v. State (2006)
nev
“The language of NRS 34.724 also suggests that a claim for pre-sentence credit was never intended to be interpreted as a challenge to the computation of time served.”
Pangallo v. State (1996)
nev
“2 NRS 34.724(2) provides that a post-conviction petition for habeas relief: (a) Is not a substitute for and does not aifect any remedies which are incident to the proceedings in the trial court or the remedy of direct review of the sentence or conviction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.724(3) — 2 cases
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.