Nevada 2017 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

AB 184 — Revises provisions concerning the withdrawal of certain pleas. (BDR 3-286)

Last action — Approved by the Governor. Chapter 85.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 13, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Advancing 52% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

75 added · 85 removed

75 line(s) added, 85 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
A.B.
Assembly Bill No.
184 A SSEMBLY B ILLN O.
184–Assemblyman Ohrenschall CHAPTER..........
184–ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL PREFILED F EBRUARY 13, 2017 ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY—Revises provisions concerning the withdrawal of certain pleas.
(BDR 3-286) FISCAL NOTE:
Effect on Local Government:
No.
Effect on the State:
No.
~ EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
Existing law authorizes a person convicted of a crime and under sentence of death or imprisonment to file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the conviction or sentence as having been obtained or imposed in violation of state law or a constitutional right.
Existing law authorizes a person convicted of a crime and under sentence of death or imprisonment to file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus violation of state law or a constitutional right.
Existing law provides that, with the exception of a direct appeal or a remedy which is incident to the proceedings in the statutory or other remedies which have been available for challenging the validityw, of the conviction or sentence and must be used exclusively in place of them.
Existing law provides that, with the exception of a direct appeal or a remedy which is incident to the proceedings in the trial court, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus replaces all other common law, statutory or other remedies which have been available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence and must be used exclusively in place of them.
(NRS 34.724) Existing law also authorizes a criminal defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere at any time before sentencing, and also permits the withdrawal of such a plea after sentencing, but only to correct a manifest injustice.
(NRS 34.724) Existing law also authorizes a criminal defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere at any time before sentencing, and manifest injustice.
(NRS 176.165) In 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a postconviction motion to proceedings in the trial court.
(NRS 176.165)ch a plea after sentencing, but only to correct a In 2000, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a postconviction motion to withdraw a guilty plea to correct a manifest injustice was a remedy incident to the proceedings in the trial court.
558 (2000)) The Nevada Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the holding of that case, instead holding that a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the exclusive remedy for a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea made after sentencing for persons in custody on the conviction beiThis bill expressly provides that a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere pursuant to NRS 176.165 that is made after - *AB184* – 2 – sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended is a remedy which is incident to the proceedings in the trial court under certain circumstances.
558 (2000)) The Nevada Supreme Court, however, recently writ of habeas corpus provides the exclusive remedy for a challenge to the validityor a of a guilty plea made after sentencing for persons in custody on the conviction being challenged.
(Harris v.
State, 130 Nev.
Adv.
Op.
47, 329 P.3d 619 (2014)) This bill expressly provides that 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 under certain circumstances.
EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new;
matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
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 claims that the time the person has served pursuant to the judgment of conviction has been improperly computed, may, without paying a filing fee, file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain relief from the conviction or sentence or to challenge the computation of time that the person has served.
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 claims that the time the person has served pursuant to the judgment of conviction has been improperly computed, may, without paying a filing fee, file a postconviction petition for a writ - 79th Session (2017) – 2 – of habeas corpus to obtain relief from the conviction or sentence or to challenge the computation of time that the person has served.
(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.
challenge the computation of time that the person has servedn to pursuant to a judgment of conviction.
A motion filed more than 5 years after the date on which the person - *AB184* – 3 – was convicted creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State on the basis 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.
This act applies to any motion to withdraw a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere pursuant to NRS sentence is suspended that is pending on or after June 12, 2014.
This act applies to any 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 that is pending on or after June 12, 2014.
H - *AB184*
~~~~~ 17 - 79th Session (2017)
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. Approved by the Governor. Chapter 85.

  2. Enrolled and delivered to Governor.

  3. In Assembly. To enrollment.

  4. Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 12, Nays: 8, Excused: 1.) To Assembly.

  5. Read second time.

  6. From committee: Do pass.

  7. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To committee.

  8. In Senate.

  9. Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 39, Nays: 1, Excused: 2.) To Senate.

  10. Read second time.

  11. From committee: Do pass.

  12. From printer. To committee.

  13. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer.

  14. Prefiled pursuant to JSR 14.2.1(d).

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 66 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (66)

66 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 66 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors AB 184?
AB 184 is sponsored by Ohrenschall, James (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 184?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 13, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 184?
Track AB 184 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 184

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 184

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →