Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
DANIEL LEE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA AND BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Daniel Lee appeals from a district court order denying a “petition of writ of habeas corpus disciplinary” filed on May 1, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Anna C. Albertson, Judge.
In his petition, Lee claimed that his due process rights were violated because the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners (Parole Board) failed to hold a parole revocation hearing within 60 days after Lee was returned to the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). A parolee that has been taken into custody has a due process right to a revocation hearing within a reasonable time. See Matter of Smith, 138 Nev. 133, 135-36, 506 P.3d 325, 327-28 (2022); see also NRS 213.1517. However, “where a parolee delays the revocation hearing by requesting continuances pending the outcome of the parolee's new criminal charges, neither due process nor NRS 213.1517 will require the Parole Board to hold the revocation hearing within 60 days of the parolee's return to NDOC.” Smith, 138 Nev. at 136 n.2, 506 P.3d at 328 n.2.
The district court found that Lee, acting through appointed counsel, sought continuances of three parole revocation hearings, the first of which was scheduled to occur within the 60-day period, because the charges in his new criminal case remained unresolved.1 This finding is supported by the record. Because Lee delayed his revocation hearing by requesting continuances, we conclude the district court did not err by finding that Lee was not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Bulla, C.J.
Gibbons, J.
Westbrook, J.
FOOTNOTES
1. To the extent Lee challenges the effective assistance of counsel, that claim is premature. Cf. Rippo v. State, 134 Nev. 411, 419-20, 423 P.3d 1084, 1095 (2018) (providing that a claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel “depends on the conclusion of the postconviction proceedings in which the ineffective assistance allegedly occurred”).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 89629-COA
Decided: August 21, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)