JACKSON v. STATE (2025)

Court of Appeals of Nevada.

Demarlo JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 88295-COA

Decided: January 13, 2025

Demarlo Jackson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Jackson argues the district court erred by denying his petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his petition, Jackson contended the method for determining the credit that should be applied toward an offender's sentence had been revised by Senate Bill (S.B.) 413 and that those revisions should apply to him.² The district court concluded Jackson was challenging his computation for time served and denied the petition because Jackson had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a postconviction habeas petition and because S.B, 413 does not become effective for calculation purposes until July 1, 2025, Consistent with our opinion in Smith v. State, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, ––– P.3d –––– (Ct. App. 2024), we conclude the district court did not err by denying Jackson's petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2. S.B. 413 was passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2023.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network