Court Opinion

ID: 9789480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:36:56.084025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:22.512290
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
joining Mowbray, C. J.,
in dissent:
I concur with the dissent’s conclusion that reincarceration of Mr. Bandies would violate fundamental principles of justice. I *53reach this conclusion based on the facts previously stated and that upon reincarceration, Mr. Bandies will have little additional time to serve until eligible for parole.
The attorney for the State explained during oral argument that Mr. Bandies will be entitled to credit for the time that the State’s own negligence kept him from serving in Nevada. Given this credit, Bandies will be eligible for parole this summer. Since Mr. Bandies has made great strides in his rehabilitation and has become a productive and law-abiding member of society, it seems probable that he would be paroled at the first opportunity. Uprooting him now to serve about six months before being paroled makes little sense when we consider the time he has already served and the base of support he has established in Las Vegas.
For these reasons, I would affirm the order of the district court granting Bandies’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.