Opinion ID: 2570062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The ameliorative amendments to NRS 193.165

Text: On June 14, 2007, the Legislature enacted A.B. 510, [7] which amended several statutes, including NRS 193.165. Specifically, A.B. 510 amended NRS 193.165 to give district court judges broader discretion in determining sentences for violations of that statute by allowing them to impose a consecutive sentence with a minimum term of not less than one year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years. [8] Prior to these amendments, NRS 193.165 mandated that a defendant serve an equal and consecutive sentence for the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the primary offense. [9] Significantly, the Legislature listed the effective date of the amendment as July 1, 2007, but failed to indicate whether the amendment would apply retroactively. [10] A review of the legislative history similarly reveals no indication that the Legislature intended the amendments to apply retroactively. Rather, it reveals that the issue of retroactivity was only briefly mentioned once during the entirety of the legislative history. [11] Relying on this court's previous decisions in Tellis v. State [12] and Sparkman v. State, [13] the State persuasively argues that because the Legislature expressed no intent to apply the amendments retroactively, the district court erred when it sentenced Pullin under the amended sentencing scheme rather than the one in effect when Pullin committed the offense. We agree with the State's contention and now take this opportunity to reaffirm that unless the Legislature clearly expresses its intent to apply a law retroactively, Nevada law requires the application of the law in effect at the time of the commission of a crime. We further conclude that legislative intent, this court's jurisprudence, and public policy considerations require this rule to apply even in the absence of a savings clause.