×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Nevada: Prisoners Eligible for Out-Of-State Jail Time
The Nevada Supreme Court held that a state prisoner was "entitled to credit
for time served in presentence confinement in another jurisdiction when
that confinement was solely pursuant to the charges for which he was
ultimately convicted."
Joshua I. Nieto was arrested in California on April 11, 2001 pursuant to a
fugitive warrant stemming from charges in Nevada. Nieto waived extradition
and was returned to Nevada on or about June 5, 2001. On November 2, 2001,
Nieto pled guilty to one count of attempted murder and received a sentence
of 5 to 15 years in prison.
On June 5, 2002 Nieto filed a motion in district court seeking credit for
the time he spent in custody in California. On June 17, 2002, without
conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Nieto's
motion. Nieto appealed.
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that NRS 176.055(1)
provides that "a defendant is entitled to credit against a sentence for
time 'actually spent in confinement before conviction,' and makes no
distinction between in-state and out-of-state presentence custody."
Of note, the court recognized that most states "allow for the granting of
credit for time served in presentence confinement while awaiting
extradition when the sole reason for the foreign incarceration is the
offense for which the defendant is ultimately convicted and sentenced."
See: Nieto v. State, 119 Nev. 229, 70 P.3d 747 (NV 2003).
for time served in presentence confinement in another jurisdiction when
that confinement was solely pursuant to the charges for which he was
ultimately convicted."
Joshua I. Nieto was arrested in California on April 11, 2001 pursuant to a
fugitive warrant stemming from charges in Nevada. Nieto waived extradition
and was returned to Nevada on or about June 5, 2001. On November 2, 2001,
Nieto pled guilty to one count of attempted murder and received a sentence
of 5 to 15 years in prison.
On June 5, 2002 Nieto filed a motion in district court seeking credit for
the time he spent in custody in California. On June 17, 2002, without
conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Nieto's
motion. Nieto appealed.
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that NRS 176.055(1)
provides that "a defendant is entitled to credit against a sentence for
time 'actually spent in confinement before conviction,' and makes no
distinction between in-state and out-of-state presentence custody."
Of note, the court recognized that most states "allow for the granting of
credit for time served in presentence confinement while awaiting
extradition when the sole reason for the foreign incarceration is the
offense for which the defendant is ultimately convicted and sentenced."
See: Nieto v. State, 119 Nev. 229, 70 P.3d 747 (NV 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Nieto v. State
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 119 Nev. 229, 70 P. 3d 747 (NV 2003). |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Nieto v. State, 70 P.3d 747, 119 Nev. 229 (Nev. 06/11/2003)
[1] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
[2] No. 39976
[3] 70 P.3d 747
[4] June 11, 2003
[5] JOSHUA I. NIETO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.
[6] Appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Lee A. Gates, Judge.
[7] Sciscento & Montgomery and Joseph S. Sciscento, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
[8] Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Carson City; David J. Roger, District Attorney, and James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
[9] Before Shearing, Leavitt and Becker, JJ.
[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[11] Reversed and remanded.
[12] OPINION
[13] This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant Joshua I. Nieto's motion for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement.
[14] On November 2, 2001, Nieto was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of attempted murder. The district court sentenced Nieto to serve a prison term of 60-180 months, and ordered him to pay restitution and extradition fees. Nieto was given credit for 146 days time served. Nieto did not pursue a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.
[15] On June 5, 2002, with the assistance of counsel, Nieto filed a motion in the district court for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement. The State opposed the motion. On June 17, 2002, the district court denied Nieto's motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.*fn1
[16] Nieto's sole contention is that he is entitled to additional credit for time served for his period of pretrial confinement in California while awaiting extradition to Nevada. Nieto alleges, and the State concedes, that he was arrested in California pursuant to a fugitive warrant on the instant charges on or about April 11, 2001, and that he was extradited to Nevada on or about June 5, 2001. Nieto also alleges, and the State does not refute, that he "waived extradition and voluntarily requested to come back to Nevada to face the charges." Therefore, Nieto argues that because the charges in Nevada were the sole reason for his incarceration in California, pursuant to NRS 176.055,*fn2 he is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody from the date of his arrest until his extradition.
[17] The State argues that an application of Nieto's contention would improperly expand upon and violate the purpose of the credit statute as discussed by this court in Anglin v. State, which is "to provide credit for confinement . . . where (1) bail has been set for the defendant and (2) the defendant was financially unable to post the bail."*fn3 The State quotes the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in State v. Harnum for the proposition that Nieto "has pointed to nothing that demonstrates that the legislature intended to extend pretrial confinement credit to fugitives . . . who are awaiting extradition in another State."*fn4 The New Hampshire court distinguishes between "awaiting trial" and "awaiting extradition" for purposes of determining when a defendant is in the custody of the state, and has concluded that credit for time served in pretrial confinement is inapplicable where the defendant is not awaiting trial, but is instead awaitingextradition.*fn5 Further, the State urges this court to follow the logic of the New Hampshire court and conclude that such an interpretation is an impermissible statutory modification and amounts to inserting the phrase "while awaiting extradition" into the language of NRS 176.055.*fn6
[1] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
[2] No. 39976
[3] 70 P.3d 747
[4] June 11, 2003
[5] JOSHUA I. NIETO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, RESPONDENT.
[6] Appeal from an order of the district court denying a motion for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Lee A. Gates, Judge.
[7] Sciscento & Montgomery and Joseph S. Sciscento, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
[8] Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Carson City; David J. Roger, District Attorney, and James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
[9] Before Shearing, Leavitt and Becker, JJ.
[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
[11] Reversed and remanded.
[12] OPINION
[13] This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant Joshua I. Nieto's motion for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement.
[14] On November 2, 2001, Nieto was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of attempted murder. The district court sentenced Nieto to serve a prison term of 60-180 months, and ordered him to pay restitution and extradition fees. Nieto was given credit for 146 days time served. Nieto did not pursue a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.
[15] On June 5, 2002, with the assistance of counsel, Nieto filed a motion in the district court for additional credit for time served in presentence confinement. The State opposed the motion. On June 17, 2002, the district court denied Nieto's motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed.*fn1
[16] Nieto's sole contention is that he is entitled to additional credit for time served for his period of pretrial confinement in California while awaiting extradition to Nevada. Nieto alleges, and the State concedes, that he was arrested in California pursuant to a fugitive warrant on the instant charges on or about April 11, 2001, and that he was extradited to Nevada on or about June 5, 2001. Nieto also alleges, and the State does not refute, that he "waived extradition and voluntarily requested to come back to Nevada to face the charges." Therefore, Nieto argues that because the charges in Nevada were the sole reason for his incarceration in California, pursuant to NRS 176.055,*fn2 he is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody from the date of his arrest until his extradition.
[17] The State argues that an application of Nieto's contention would improperly expand upon and violate the purpose of the credit statute as discussed by this court in Anglin v. State, which is "to provide credit for confinement . . . where (1) bail has been set for the defendant and (2) the defendant was financially unable to post the bail."*fn3 The State quotes the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in State v. Harnum for the proposition that Nieto "has pointed to nothing that demonstrates that the legislature intended to extend pretrial confinement credit to fugitives . . . who are awaiting extradition in another State."*fn4 The New Hampshire court distinguishes between "awaiting trial" and "awaiting extradition" for purposes of determining when a defendant is in the custody of the state, and has concluded that credit for time served in pretrial confinement is inapplicable where the defendant is not awaiting trial, but is instead awaitingextradition.*fn5 Further, the State urges this court to follow the logic of the New Hampshire court and conclude that such an interpretation is an impermissible statutory modification and amounts to inserting the phrase "while awaiting extradition" into the language of NRS 176.055.*fn6