Opinion ID: 3182398
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any incident involving his commission of

Text: a violent act or an act that threatened public safety during the period of his probation or parole. 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 476, § 16(2), at 2360. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0 1947A C(99 Section 16 directed the Division of Parole and Probation (Division) to adopt implementing regulations: [A] person who was dishonorably discharged from probation or parole before the effective date of this section, until July 1, 2008, may apply to the Division of Parole and Probation of the Department of Public Safety, in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Division pursuant to the provisions of this section . . . . 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 476, § 16(1), at 2360 (emphasis added). On May 4, 2006, the Division adopted regulations for a Change of Dishonorable Discharge to Honorable Discharge. See NAC 213.720 et seq. The regulations specifically incorporate Section 16, not only in the section titles, but also in the text. For example, NAC 213.730 is titled Applicant' defined. (§ 16 of ch. 476, Stats. 2005). Further, the text of NAC 213.730 defines an applicant as a person who submits an application to the Division to change his or her dishonorable discharge from probation or parole to an honorable discharge from probation or parole in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of chapter 476, Statutes of Nevada 2005. (Emphasis added.) As a three-year experiment, Section 16 included a sunset clause that rendered Section 16 ineffective after July 1, 2008. Although Section 16 included sunsetting language, the regulations adopted to implement Section 16, NAC 213.720 et seq., do not. At the end of the three years, Section 16, subsection 5, required the Division to send a written report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau including statistics about the program and whether the Division recommends that the program continue. 2005 Nev. Stat., ch. 476, § 16(5), at 2361. On December 8, 2008, the Division sent its written report, detailing the number of applications received, granted, denied, the reasons SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e' why, and its recommendation. Of the nine applications completed, only three individuals received a change in discharge. The other six individuals were denied a change in discharge because the Dishonorable Discharges resulted from factors in addition to non-payment of Restitution and/or Supervision fees, which were not addressed in the regulation change. Nevertheless, the Division concluded: This regulation, with the possibility of receiving additional restitution due to victims or fees due to the Division, should be continued. Despite the Division's recommendation that Section 16 continue, the Legislature never codified Section 16 into the Nevada Revised Statutes.