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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.770

Judicial determination of need for evidentiary hearing; dismissal of petition or granting of writ

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.770  Judicial determination of need for evidentiary hearing; dismissal of petition or granting of writ.

      1.  The judge or justice, upon review of the response or answer and all supporting documents which are filed, shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. A petitioner must not be discharged or committed to the custody of a person other than the respondent unless an evidentiary hearing is held.

      2.  If the judge or justice determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge or justice shall dismiss the petition without a hearing.

      3.  If the judge or justice determines that an evidentiary hearing is required, the judge or justice shall grant the writ and shall set a date for the hearing.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 1230; A 1991, 86; 2023, 1630)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Pellegrini v. State
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pellegrini v. State (2001) nev “745(4) (providing for summary dismissal of successive petitions); NRS 34.770(l)-(2) (providing that where a judge determines upon review of the pleadings and supporting documents “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not required, he shall…”
Means v. State (2004) nev “NRS 34.770(1) specifically states that a petitioner “must not be discharged or committed to the custody of a person other than the respondent unless an evidentiary hearing is held.”
Hathaway v. State (2003) nev “750 and NRS 34.770, the district court declined to appoint post-conviction counsel or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.”
Gebers v. State (2002) nev · cites it 3× “DISCUSSION NRS 34.770(1) provides that, in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, the judge “shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.”
Mann v. State (2002) nev “13 NRS 34.770(1). 14 NRS 34.790. 15 NRS 34.790(3).”
Standley v. Warden (1999) nev · cites it 4× “750; NRS 34.770; NRS 34.810. On appeal, this court determined that appellant's petition was not successive and remanded the matter to the district court for reconsideration.”
Beets v. State (1994) nev “NRS 34.770, NRS 34.800 and NRS 34.810 provide for the manner in which the district court decides a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
HARRIS (BARRY) v. WARDEN (2024) nev “470, and NRS 34.770). Once the district court decides to hold an evidentiary hearing on a petitioner’s claims, the district court is “required by statute to grant the writ, to order [the petitioner] to be produced for the hearing, and to permit [the petitioner] an opportunity to…”
Bowles (Travis) v. The Second Judicial Dist. Ct. (2022) nev · cites it 2× “A district court's dismissal of a postconviction habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing is not procedurally improper, NRS 34.770(2) ("If the judge or justice determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge or…”
HARRIS (BARRY) v. WARDEN (2024) nev “470, and NRS 34.770). Once the district court decides to hold an evidentiary hearing on a petitioner's claims, the district court is "required by statute to grant the writ.”
Bates (Heather) v. State (2013) nev “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2); Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01 , 198 P.”
Bradford (Julius) v. State (2013) nev “1 See NRS 34.770(2); NRS 34.780(2). Next, appellant argues that this court should consider the claims in this appeal and claims that are raised in a separate appeal for their cumulative effect.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.770(1) — 5 cases
Means v. State (2004) nev “NRS 34.770(1) specifically states that a petitioner “must not be discharged or committed to the custody of a person other than the respondent unless an evidentiary hearing is held.”
Mann v. State (2002) nev “13 NRS 34.770(1). 14 NRS 34.790. 15 NRS 34.790(3).”
Gebers v. State (2002) nev “DISCUSSION NRS 34.770(1) provides that, in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, the judge “shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.”
Sierra (Siegfred) v. State (2014) nev
Adkisson (Michael) v. State (2015) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.770(2) — 7 cases
Bowles (Travis) v. The Second Judicial Dist. Ct. (2022) nev “A district court's dismissal of a postconviction habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing is not procedurally improper, NRS 34.770(2) ("If the judge or justice determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge or…”
Bates (Heather) v. State (2013) nev “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2); Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01 , 198 P.”
Bradford (Julius) v. State (2013) nev “1 See NRS 34.770(2); NRS 34.780(2). Next, appellant argues that this court should consider the claims in this appeal and claims that are raised in a separate appeal for their cumulative effect.”
Freeman (Jacoby) v. State (2013) nev
Rogers v. McDaniel (2011) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.770(3) — 1 case
Gebers v. State (2002) nev “DISCUSSION NRS 34.770(1) provides that, in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings, the judge “shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.770(l) — 1 case
Pellegrini v. State (2001) nev “745(4) (providing for summary dismissal of successive petitions); NRS 34.770(l)-(2) (providing that where a judge determines upon review of the pleadings and supporting documents “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not required, he shall…”
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.