Howard v. State

Full title: REGINALD CLARENCE HOWARD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND THE STATE…

Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada

Date published: Aug 1, 2024

No. 87843-COA (Nev. App. Aug. 1, 2024)

Opinion

87843-COA

08-01-2024

REGINALD CLARENCE HOWARD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, Respondents.

GIBBONS, C.J.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS, C.J.

Howard appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on August 8, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

Howard argues the district court erred by denying his claim that the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) failed to hold a parole revocation hearing within 60 days after Howard was returned to the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and that, consequently, he was not given proper credit toward his parole. Howard violated his parole by committing new crimes. The Nevada Supreme Court has concluded that if a parolee is returned to the custody of NDOC before the adjudication of new charges, a revocation hearing must be held within 60 days of returning to custody. See Matter of Smith, 138 Nev. 133, 137, 506 P.3d 325, 329 (2022); see also NRS 213.1517(3), (4).

Here, Howard was returned to the custody of NDOC on July 16, 2014, but his parole revocation hearing was not held until July 28, 2015. Thus, it appears that Howard's right to a parole revocation hearing within 60 days of returning to NDOC's custody was violated. However, the district court determined that Howard had already received a new parole hearing in 2018, and thus was not entitled to relief. The record supports this determination. The remedy for an untimely parole hearing is to have a new parole hearing. See Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 29, 768 P.2d 882, 884 (1989) (recognizing that no authority permits the Parole Board to grant a retroactive parole). Because Howard had a new parole hearing in 2018, we conclude the district court did not err by finding that Howard was not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, J., Westbrook, J.

Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge