Opinion ID: 2570062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Statutory retroactivity under Nevada caselaw

Text: Beginning with Tellis v. State, [21] this court has repeatedly indicated its approval of the general rule set forth above. In that case, Tellis argued that because the Legislature had failed to enact a specific savings clause when it amended the statute in question, the court was obligated to construe the statute strictly and give him the benefit of the sentence in effect at the time he was convicted and sentenced, notwithstanding the statute carrying a more severe penalty was in force at the time of his arrest. [22] We held that the general savings clause set forth in NRS 193.130 prohibited Tellis from being sentenced under ameliorative amendments enacted after he committed his crime. In rejecting this claim, this court determined that it was appropriate to sentence Tellis in accord with the statute in force at the time he committed his crime because the Legislature had enacted a general savings clause, NRS 193.130, which mandated that result. [23] The court concluded that because there was a savings clause in effect at the time the district court sentenced Tellis, the district court had appropriately imposed the sentence in force at the time Tellis committed his crime. [24] This court revisited the issue of whether ameliorative statutes applied retroactively in Sparkman v. State. [25] In that case, Sparkman challenged a judgment of conviction sentencing him to two terms of life imprisonmentthe prescribed sentence in effect at the time Sparkman committed his offense by arguing that he should be sentenced under a new ameliorative sentencing scheme. [26] This court unequivocally stated that the general rule is that the proper penalty is that in effect at the time of the commission of the offense unless the Legislature demonstrates clear legislative intent to apply a criminal statute retroactively. [27] Notwithstanding the general rule, this court concluded that the district court erred in sentencing Sparkman because the newly enacted amendment Sparkman sought to have applied in his favor specifically indicated that it would apply retroactively. [28] This court reiterated the principle that the Legislature must demonstrate its clear intent to apply a statute retroactively in Castillo v. State. [29] In Castillo, this court declined to apply retroactively amendments to NRS 62.080, which made it illegal to certify a minor as an adult unless he was 16 years of age or older when he committed his crime instead of applying the previous version of the statute, which merely required the minor to be 16 years old at the time of his certification as an adult. [30] In declining to apply the amendments retroactively, this court noted that [i]n Nevada and neighboring jurisdictions, changes in statutes are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent to apply a statute retroactively. [31] These cases demonstrate this court's continued adherence to the general rule. Next, we turn to the important public policy considerations that favor the continued application of the general rule set forth in the cases discussed above.