Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

118 Nev. 341

46 P.3d 87

118 Nev.Adv.Rep. 35

Nollette v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 2002

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 2002-05-17

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections (2013), Commonwealth v. Leidig (2008)

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions

Applies NV 176 § 176.0927

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-05-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rose, J.,

¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶2I concur in the majority’s decision that the loss of a professional license is a collateral effect of a guilty plea to a sex crime, but I conclude that NRS 176.0927 makes the requirement that a sex offender register a direct consequence of a guilty plea to a sex crime. This statute mandates that the district court inform the defendant of the registration requirements “before imposing sentence,” and further mandates that the defendant read and sign a form acknowledging the registration requirements.

¶3By statute, a sex offender must be informed of the registration requirements before sentencing. But a sentence is a direct result of a defendant’s guilty plea. Thus, I would hold that the legislature required that registration be acknowledged as a direct consequence of the plea process, even before formal sentencing. Because Nollette was not informed of this direct consequence before he pleaded guilty, his guilty plea is infirm and should be set aside and the case remanded for trial.

/118/nev/341 · .json · Public domain