Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole

Nevada Supreme Court

Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole

DecidedMay 14, 2014

Docket63030

StatusUnpublished

This text of Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole (Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

incident would result in his being punished twice for the same action in two different jurisdictions. The district court denied appellant's writ petition and, on appeal from that determination, he reiterates the arguments that he advanced before the district court. The Double Jeopardy Clause under the United States Constitution protects a defendant from both successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688,695-96 (1993); see also Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8; Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 1274, 1278 (2012) (recognizing that the federal and Nevada Constitutions provide the same protections against double jeopardy). Double Jeopardy protections, however, are not implicated here because the purpose of the parole revocation hearing at issue in this case is to determine whether the Parole Board will reinstate appellant's original sentence for the underlying crime due to his apparent parole violations, not to punish appellant for the conduct that led to the parole revocation hearing. See United States v.

Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that the revocation of parole is viewed as the reinstatement of a previous sentence, not as punishment for the actions resulting in the revocation). This is true even if the parolee is subjected to more than one parole revocation based on the same underlying act, as appellant alleges is the case here. See

United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the revocation of both probation and supervised release related to two prior convictions based on a single action by the offending party was permissible and did not implicate double jeopardy). Accordingly, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A me, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition, Reno Newspapers, 126 Nev at , 234 P.3d at 924, and we therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

\CA.-k Lat-aai ,J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

, J.

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge William Cato Sells, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (G) 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

incident would result in his being punished twice for the same action in two different jurisdictions. The district court denied appellant's writ petition and, on appeal from that determination, he reiterates the arguments that he advanced before the district court. The Double Jeopardy Clause under the United States Constitution protects a defendant from both successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688,695-96 (1993); see also Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8; Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 1274, 1278 (2012) (recognizing that the federal and Nevada Constitutions provide the same protections against double jeopardy). Double Jeopardy protections, however, are not implicated here because the purpose of the parole revocation hearing at issue in this case is to determine whether the Parole Board will reinstate appellant's original sentence for the underlying crime due to his apparent parole violations, not to punish appellant for the conduct that led to the parole revocation hearing. See United States v.

Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that the revocation of parole is viewed as the reinstatement of a previous sentence, not as punishment for the actions resulting in the revocation). This is true even if the parolee is subjected to more than one parole revocation based on the same underlying act, as appellant alleges is the case here. See

United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the revocation of both probation and supervised release related to two prior convictions based on a single action by the offending party was permissible and did not implicate double jeopardy). Accordingly, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A me, district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition, Reno Newspapers, 126 Nev at , 234 P.3d at 924, and we therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

\CA.-k Lat-aai ,J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

, J.

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge William Cato Sells, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (G) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sells, Jr. v. Nev. Board of Parole, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sells-jr-v-nev-board-of-parole-nev-2014.

Opinion

J. Douglas

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack