Hunt v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
| Decision Date | 04 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 26495,26495 |
| Citation | 903 P.2d 826,111 Nev. 1284 |
| Parties | Dyarell D. HUNT, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, John Ignacio, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Dyarell D. Hunt, Carson City, Appellant In Proper Person.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.
On October 17, 1994, appellant filed in the district court a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On November 1, 1994, the district court summarily denied appellant's petition. This appeal followed.
In his petition, appellant stated that he is serving a sentence of "life with the possibility of parole three counts running concurrent as habitual criminal." Appellant further stated that he filed his petition as a challenge to the computation and application of good time credits to his sentence. Finally, appellant argued that
In denying appellant's petition, the district court stated that it could not determine a basis upon which it could grant the relief sought because appellant did not provide the court with sufficient facts concerning the time, nature or current disposition of his sentence. Our review of the record on appeal reveals that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition. First, appellant did not provide the district court with sufficient information concerning his judgment of conviction and sentence. Next, it appears that appellant is arguing that good time credits should be applied to his sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole. NRS 209.446(6)(a) provides that good time credit "[m]ust be deducted from the maximum term imposed by the sentence." Because appellant was sentenced to a term of life in prison, there is no date from which the credit can be deducted.
The statute does not provide any guidance as to the application of good time credit to a sentence of life in prison. When interpreting a statute, this court resolves any doubt as to legislative intent in favor of what is reasonable, and against what is unreasonable. Oakley v. State, 105 Nev. 700, 702, 782 P.2d 1321, 1322 (1989). A statute should be construed in light of the policy and the spirit of the law, and the interpretation should avoid absurd results. Id. In construing the legislative intent of NRS 209.446, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corpuz v. Holder
...of 10 days from the offender's sentence for each month the offender serves. 4.SeeNev.Rev.Stat. §§ 209.432–209.451; Hunt v. Warden, 111 Nev. 1284, 903 P.2d 826 (1995). 5. His sentence was 8 years, or 2920 days. Assuming he earned a 10 day deduction each month, it would have taken him 6 years......
-
Tripp v. Nev. State Parole Bd.
..."[T]he legislature did not intend good time credit to be applied to a sentence of life in prison." Hunt v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 111 Nev. 1284, 1285, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (1995). Because Tripp was sentenced to a maximum term of life in prison, there is no date from which credits can be ......
-
Schuster v. Dist. Ct.
...be interpreted to avoid absurd results), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 751, 163 L.Ed.2d 585 (2005); Hunt v. Warden, 111 Nev. 1284, 1285, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (1995). 15. Sheriff v. Dhadda, 115 Nev. 175, 180, 980 P.2d 1062, 1065 16. Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178, 180 ......
-
English v. State
...construed in light of the policy and the spirit of the law, and the interpretation should avoid absurd results." Hunt v. Warden, 111 Nev. 1284, 1285, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (1995). "When interpreting a statute, this court resolves any doubt as to legislative intent in favor of what is reasonable......