NRS
484C.340 Application by third-time offender to undergo program of
treatment; hearing under certain circumstances; sentencing of offender and
conditional suspension of proceedings; administration of program; requirements
to participate in program; certain previous convictions preclude offender from
participating in program; requirements for offender placed under active
electronic monitoring; unlawful to intentionally remove or disable or attempt
to remove or disable electronic monitoring device.
1. An offender who enters a plea of guilty
or nolo contendere to a violation of NRS
484C.110 or 484C.120 that is
punishable pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 484C.400 may, at the time the
offender enters a plea, apply to the court to undergo a program of treatment
for an alcohol or other substance use disorder for at least 3 years. The court
may authorize that treatment if:
(a) The offender is diagnosed as a person with an
alcohol or other substance use disorder by:
(1) An alcohol and drug counselor who is
licensed or certified, or a clinical alcohol and drug counselor who is
licensed, pursuant to chapter 641C of NRS,
to make that diagnosis;
(2) A physician who is certified to make
that diagnosis by the Board of Medical Examiners;
(3) An advanced practice registered nurse
who is certified to make that diagnosis by the State Board of Nursing; and
(b) The offender agrees to pay the costs of the
treatment to the extent of his or her financial resources.
Ê An alcohol
and drug counselor, a clinical alcohol and drug counselor, a physician or an
advanced practice registered nurse who diagnoses an offender as a person with
an alcohol or other substance use disorder shall make a report and
recommendation to the court concerning the length and type of treatment
required for the offender.
2. A prosecuting attorney may, within 10
days after receiving notice of an application for treatment pursuant to this
section, request a hearing on the matter. The court shall order a hearing on
the application upon the request of the prosecuting attorney or may order a
hearing on its own motion.
3. At the hearing on the application for
treatment, the prosecuting attorney may present the court with any relevant
evidence on the matter. If a hearing is not held, the court shall decide the
matter and other information before the court.
4. If the court determines that an
application for treatment should be granted, the court shall:
(a) Immediately, without entering a judgment of
conviction and with the consent of the offender, suspend further proceedings
and place the offender on probation for not more than 5 years.
(b) Order the offender to complete a program of
treatment for an alcohol or other substance use disorder with a treatment
provider approved by the court. If the court has a specialty court program for
the supervision and monitoring of the person, the treatment provider must
comply with the requirements of the specialty court, including, without
limitation, any requirement to submit progress reports to the specialty court.
(c) Advise the offender that:
(1) He or she may be placed under the
supervision of a treatment provider for not more than 5 years.
(2) The court may order the offender to be
admitted to a residential treatment facility.
(3) The court will enter a judgment of
conviction for a violation of paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 484C.400 if a treatment provider
fails to accept the offender for a program of treatment for an alcohol or other
substance use disorder or if the offender fails to complete the program of
treatment satisfactorily. Any sentence of imprisonment may be reduced by a time
equal to that which the offender served before beginning treatment.
(4) If the offender completes the
treatment satisfactorily, the court will enter a judgment of conviction for a
violation of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 484C.400.
(5) The provisions of NRS 483.460 requiring the revocation of the
license, permit or privilege of the offender to drive do not apply.
5. The court shall administer the program
of treatment pursuant to the procedures provided in NRS 176A.230 to 176A.245, inclusive, except that the
court:
(a) Shall not defer the sentence or set aside the
conviction upon the election of treatment, except as otherwise provided in this
section; and
(b) May enter a judgment of conviction and
proceed as provided in paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 484C.400 for a violation of a
condition ordered by the court.
6. To participate in a program of
treatment, the offender must:
(a) Serve not less than 6 months of residential
confinement;
(b) Be placed under a system of active electronic
monitoring, through the Division, that is capable of identifying the offender’s
location and producing, upon request, reports or records of the offender’s
presence near or within, or departure from, a specified geographic location and
pay any costs associated with the offender’s participation under the system of
active electronic monitoring;
(c) Install, at his or her own expense, an
ignition interlock device for not less than 12 months;
(d) Not drive any vehicle unless it is equipped
with an ignition interlock device;
(e) Agree to be subject to periodic testing for
the use of alcohol or controlled substances while participating in a program of
treatment; and
(f) Agree to any other conditions that the court
deems necessary.
7. An offender may not apply to the court
to undergo a program of treatment for an alcohol or other substance use disorder
pursuant to this section if the offender has previously been ordered to
complete a program of treatment pursuant to this section or if the offender has
previously been convicted of:
(a) A violation of NRS 484C.430;
(b) A violation of NRS 484C.130;
(c) A homicide resulting from driving or being in
actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor or a controlled substance or resulting from any other conduct prohibited
by NRS 484C.110, 484C.130 or 484C.430;
(d) A violation of paragraph (c) of subsection 1
of NRS 484C.400;
(e) A violation of NRS 484C.410; or
(f) A violation of law of any other jurisdiction
that prohibits the same or similar conduct as set forth in paragraph (a), (b),
(c) or (d).
8. An offender placed under a system of
active electronic monitoring pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 6 shall:
(a) Follow the instructions provided by the
Division to maintain the electronic monitoring device in working order.
(b) Report any incidental damage or defacement of
the electronic monitoring device to the Division within 2 hours after the
occurrence of the damage or defacement.
(c) Abide by any other conditions set forth by
the court or the Division with regard to the offender’s participation under the
system of active electronic monitoring.
9. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, a person who intentionally removes or disables or attempts to
remove or disable an electronic monitoring device placed on an offender
pursuant to this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The provisions of
this subsection do not prohibit a person authorized by the Division from
performing maintenance or repairs to an electronic monitoring device.
10. As used is this section, “Division”
means the Division of Parole and Probation of the Department of Public Safety.
(Added to NRS by 2007,
1058; A 2009,
422, 1891;
2015,
757; 2019,
505, 4482;
2021,
2461; 2025,
3279)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.37941)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2023 · leading case:
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 31× “: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 8× “For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 8× “For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 8× “For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “37941 was repealed and replaced by NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A provisions for treatment of an offense as a misdemeanor and a pre-plea diversion program.”
Martin v. Lawson (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 2× “16 The parties agreed that Martin should be allowed to participate in a felony DUI program 17 under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340. Id. at 5–8. The court transferred Martin into that program and 18 placed him on probation.”
Ghafouria (Rochanna) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 3× “3d 77, 81 (2009) (a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy to challenge a district court's refusal to consider an application for treatment filed pursuant to NRS 484C.340). Petitioner contends that the district court erred by denying her application for alcohol treatment…”
Adams (Darren) v. State (Nev. 2017).
“yt DEPUTY CLERK This is an appeal from a district court order denying a "motion for hearing on application under NRS 484C.340, - and to compel acceptance into serious offender program.”
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (hearn (matthew)), 2018 NV 96 (Nev. 2018).
“37941 was repealed and replaced by NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A provisions for treatment of an offense as a misdemeanor and a pre-plea diversion program.”
Triana (Eddy) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“See NRS 484C.340. Such a reduced conviction is specifically considered a valid prior conviction for purposes of driving under the influence with one or more prior felony DUI convictions.”
Triana (Eddy) v. State (Nev. 2019).
“See NRS 484C.340. Such a reduced conviction is specifically considered a valid prior conviction for purposes of driving under the influence with one or more prior felony DUI convictions.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(1) — 1 case
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(2) — 1 case
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(4) — 3 cases
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(4)(a) — 4 cases
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
MacIas (Lucio) v. State C/W 60163/60164 (Nev. 2014).
“For these reasons, we 3 Maciasconcedes that the district courts should have placed him on probation pursuant to NRS 484C.340. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A 44e1(4 ORDER the judgments of the district courts REVERSED AND REMAND these matters to the district courts for…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(4)(b)(2) — 1 case
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(4)(b)(3) — 1 case
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(5)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484C.340(7) — 1 case
Aguilar-raygoza v. State, 255 P.3d 262 (Nev. 2011).
“: In this appeal, we consider whether it is unconstitutional to deny to defendants who exercise their right to a jury trial eligibility for the alcohol treatment diversion program set forth in NRS 484C.340. 1 Appellant Pedro Aguilar-Raygoza argues that NRS 484C.”
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.