## Facts

- Robert J. Piland was 17 when he was indicted for robbery in May 1967, tried in June 1967 in adult court, convicted, and imprisoned.
- On appeal, the State conceded the adult criminal court had not properly certified Piland for adult prosecution as required by Nevada law.
- In May 1968, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded due to the failure to proceed initially under juvenile jurisdiction.
- In October 1968, while still confined, Piland obtained a writ of habeas corpus ordering release, expressly without prejudice to the State initiating new juvenile court proceedings; the State then filed a juvenile petition.
- In December 1968, Piland filed a second habeas petition claiming continued custody and renewed proceedings violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial; the district court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the State’s delay—stemming from its initial failure to proceed under proper juvenile procedures and resulting prolonged confinement—violated Piland’s constitutional right to a speedy trial in juvenile proceedings.
2. Whether habeas corpus is an appropriate vehicle to remedy a juvenile speedy-trial violation through release from custody.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of the second habeas petition.
- The court held Piland had been denied a constitutional right to a speedy trial applicable to juvenile proceedings.
- The court ordered the writ of habeas corpus to issue and directed Piland’s release from custody.

## Legal Principles

- Juveniles are entitled, as a matter of due process, to fundamental procedural protections, including a right to a speedy adjudication of charges.
- After In re Gault, juvenile proceedings cannot be insulated from constitutional safeguards by reliance on parens patriae characterizations.
- When substantial delay is attributable to the State’s procedural errors and the juvenile remains confined, the delay can violate due process speedy-trial protections.
- Habeas corpus may be used by a confined juvenile to challenge unlawful continued detention based on a speedy-trial violation, and release is an available remedy.

## Conclusion

Because the State’s own missteps and resulting delay kept Piland confined without a timely, properly instituted juvenile adjudication, due process required habeas relief; the denial of the writ was reversed and Piland was ordered released.


Piland v. Clark Cnty. Juvenile Ct. Servs., 85 Nev. 489, 457 P.2d 523 (1969)