Senate committee weighs SB 66 to clarify where parolees file state habeas time-computation petitions

The Nevada Attorney General—s Office presented Senate Bill 66 to the Senate Judiciary Committee to clarify where people who are no longer incarcerated should file state habeas petitions that challenge computation of time served.

Jamie Stills, senior deputy attorney general, told the committee that "SB 66 is a proposed change to Nevada statute that governs venue for habeas petitions." Stills said existing law, NRS 34.738, requires time-computation petitions to be filed in the county of incarceration or, if incarcerated outside Nevada, in the First Judicial District in Carson City; SB 66 would provide that petitioners who are no longer in the Department of Corrections file in the county where they reside or in the First Judicial District if they no longer live in Nevada.

The change, Stills said, is intended to resolve confusion about where parolees and other formerly incarcerated people should file petitions challenging the calculation of their maximum sentence. "We have seen an increase in the number of parolees challenging the calculation of their maximum sentence," Stills said, and the bill "addresses when the petitioner is no longer in the department's custody."

Why it matters: venue rules affect how easily petitioners and counsel can access records and court calendars. Advocates for incarcerated people told the committee they fear SB 66 could make it harder for people to obtain relief when the venue is tied to the prison where they currently are housed, especially because many prisoners are transferred among facilities.

Denise Bolanos Heredia, associate director of Return Strong Nevada, testified in opposition and said, "Most people in prisons have been moved multiple times... SB 66 would require them to file these petitions in the county where they're currently incarcerated rather than where they were convicted, which just makes it... more difficult to access legal support and obtain critical case records." She added housing instability after release also could complicate filings.

Advocates for the Inmates and the Innocent and family members also used the hearing to seek a separate amendment to allow posthumous petitions to establish factual innocence. Tonia Brown and Anne Marie Grant presented proposed language that would let a decedent's representative petition for a finding of factual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, and they described gaps they said have blocked relief in prior cases.

Committee legal counsel told members the proposed posthumous-factual-innocence amendment "would not be germane" to SB 66, citing Joint Standing Rule 14.7, which limits amendments to matters related to a bill's title and subject. Counsel said the rule precludes adding an amendment that is independent of and not properly connected to the bill's subject, which here is writs of habeas corpus limited to time-computation venue.

Some committee members expressed willingness to discuss the advocates' concerns outside the hearing. Senator Flores told Brown and other advocates he was "more than happy offline to engage with you and to see if there's a way" to pursue those changes through a different vehicle. Brown and several callers also asked whether similar language could be offered as an amendment to Assembly Bill 63, which deals with compensation for the wrongfully convicted; committee members said they would need assembly counsel to advise on that question.

Other public commenters raised related concerns about local conviction-integrity processes. A speaker who identified herself as having filed complaints alleged delays and insufficient review by a Washoe County conviction-integrity committee; another caller urged broader audits and called for stronger due-process safeguards.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the conclusion of the hearing. Committee staff closed testimony after callers and in-person speakers completed remarks and the chair ended the hearing.

The bill as presented would amend NRS 34.738 to specify venue for time-computation petitions by people no longer in custody; the committee hearing also surfaced stakeholder interest in a separate statutory framework for posthumous petitions to establish factual innocence. Committee members signaled interest in further conversations but recorded no committee action on SB 66 at this hearing.