State v. Hayes
Opinion
[367]*367OPINION
On October 17, 1972, Richard Otto Van Aken was found guilty, by jury verdict, of cheating at gambling. He was sentenced, placed on probation, and, on March 20, 1975, given an honorable discharge from probation pursuant to NRS 176.225.1 On February 3, 1978, Van Aken petitioned, pursuant to NRS 179.255, for an order sealing all records involving his arrest and conviction. The district court subsequently granted the petition and the state has instituted this original proceeding in certiorari, contending that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by sealing the records. It argues NRS 179.255 is not applicable where one has been convicted of a crime.2 We agree.
By its express terms, NRS 179.255 pertains only to the sealing of records of persons who have been arrested for an alleged crime, but not convicted. However, where, as here, a person has been convicted of a crime, NRS 179.245 governs the sealing of records.3 The mere fact that one convicted of a crime has [368]*368been discharged from probation does not alter this conclusion. See People v. Sharman, 95 Cal.Rptr. 134(Cal.App. 1971). Cf. Patt v. Nevada State Bd. of Accountancy, 93 Nev. 548, 571 P.2d 105 (1977).
Therefore, since the time requirements delineated in NRS 179.245 have not expired, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by sealing Van Aken’s records. Accordingly, the petition for the extraordinary writ is granted. ,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
580 P.2d 122 (State v. Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.