Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726 (2026)

Limitations on time to file; stay of sentence

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 34.726 Limitations on time to file; stay of sentence.

1. Unless there is good cause shown for delay, a petition that challenges the validity of a judgment of conviction or sentence must be filed within 1 year after entry of the judgment of conviction or, if an appeal has been taken from the judgment, within 1 year after the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution issues its remittitur. For the purposes of this subsection, good cause for delay exists if the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court:

(a) That the delay is not the fault of the petitioner; and

(b) That dismissal of the petition as untimely will unduly prejudice the petitioner.

2. The execution of a sentence must not be stayed for the period provided in subsection 1 solely because a petition may be filed within that period. A stay of sentence must not be granted unless:

(a) A petition is actually filed; and

(b) The petitioner establishes a compelling basis for the stay.

(Added to NRS by 1991, 75; A 2013, 1736; 2023, 1620)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 853 cases (220 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 43× “*864 OPINION Per Curiam: In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether NRS 34.726 and its one-year time bar apply to second or successive petitions for post-conviction relief.”

Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 32× “He provided several explanations for his failure to file the petition within the time provided by NRS 34.726(1) and for failing to *1093 raise the new claims in prior proceedings or raising the claims again.”

Steven W. Collier v. Bob Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 54× “2004), the Nevada Supreme Court considered a case that involved an amended judgment and held: 73 No specific language in NRS 34.726 expressly provides that the one-year time period restarts if the judgment of conviction is amended.”

State v. Huebler, 275 P.3d 91 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 16× “DISCUSSION The relationship between good cause for delay in filing a petition and the test for a Brady violation NRS 34.726 limits the time in which a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges a judgment of conviction or sentence may be filed.”

Sullivan v. State, 96 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 11× “We conclude that the petition was improperly treated as timely under NRS 34.726 simply because it was filed within one year of the entry of the amended judgment of conviction.”

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 7× “*234 Given the untimely and successive nature of Riker’s petition, the district court had a duty imposed by law to consider whether any or all of Riker’s claims were barred under NRS 34.726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

State v. Bennett, 81 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 8× “[12] See NRS 34.726; NRS 34.810. [13] See NRS 34.810; Pellegrini, 117 Nev.”

Hathaway v. State, 71 P.3d 503 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 4× “10 This court rejected Harris’ argument and held: [A]n allegation that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to inform a claimant of the right to appeal from the judgment of conviction, or any other allegation that a claimant was deprived of a direct appeal without his or her…”

Bejarano v. State, 146 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 8× “The district court denied Bejarano's petition on October 7, 2004, finding it untimely and procedurally barred pursuant to NRS 34.726(1). This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Bejarano raises numerous issues on appeal from the district court's order denying him relief in thishis…”

Gonzales v. State, 53 P.3d 901 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 13× “To answer that question, we must determine the date on which the one-year filing period under NRS 34.726 commenced and the date on which a proper person post-conviction habeas petition is deemed filed for purposes of determining its timeliness.”

Cary Williams v. Timothy Filson, 908 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “The panel held that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726 , which imposes a general one-year deadline for the filing of petitions for post-conviction relief, is an independent and adequate state procedural bar to federal review.”

Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 21× “3d at 1077 (explaining that a postconviction-counsel claim is not "immune to other procedural default fstatutesr such as NRS 34.726); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252-53, 71 P.”

Show all 853 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1) — 665 cases

Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018). “He provided several explanations for his failure to file the petition within the time provided by NRS 34.726(1) and for failing to *1093 raise the new claims in prior proceedings or raising the claims again.”

Steven W. Collier v. Bob Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2005). “2004), the Nevada Supreme Court considered a case that involved an amended judgment and held: 73 No specific language in NRS 34.726 expressly provides that the one-year time period restarts if the judgment of conviction is amended.”

State v. Huebler, 275 P.3d 91 (Nev. 2012). “DISCUSSION The relationship between good cause for delay in filing a petition and the test for a Brady violation NRS 34.726 limits the time in which a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges a judgment of conviction or sentence may be filed.”

Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). “*864 OPINION Per Curiam: In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether NRS 34.726 and its one-year time bar apply to second or successive petitions for post-conviction relief.”

Bejarano v. State, 146 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2006). “The district court denied Bejarano's petition on October 7, 2004, finding it untimely and procedurally barred pursuant to NRS 34.726(1). This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Bejarano raises numerous issues on appeal from the district court's order denying him relief in thishis…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1)(a) — 9 cases

Sullivan v. State, 96 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2004). “We conclude that the petition was improperly treated as timely under NRS 34.726 simply because it was filed within one year of the entry of the amended judgment of conviction.”

Bennett v. State, 901 P.2d 676 (Nev. 1995).

Harris v. Warden, S. Desert Corr. Ctr., 964 P.2d 785 (Nev. 1998).

Harris v. State, 2017 NV 85 (Nev. 2017).

Harris (lamar) Vs. State, 2017 NV 85 (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(1)(b) — 7 cases

Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021). “3d at 1077 (explaining that a postconviction-counsel claim is not "immune to other procedural default fstatutesr such as NRS 34.726); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252-53, 71 P.”

Harris v. State, 2017 NV 85 (Nev. 2017).

Harris (lamar) Vs. State, 2017 NV 85 (Nev. 2017).

Harris v. State (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(2)(b) — 1 case

Alexander (Demetri) v. State (Nev. 2016).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.726(l)(b) — 1 case

Klein v. Warden, Ely State Prison, 43 P.3d 1029 (Nev. 2002).

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.