In a case that could redefine the parameters of clemency in Nevada, Holland & Hart attorney Erica Medley recently secured a victory for pro bono client Sally Villaverde, challenging long-established interpretations about the possibility of sentence modification for inmates subject to life without the possibility of parole.
Holland & Hart has a longstanding commitment to provide pro bono legal services to help others who might otherwise go without legal assistance. An experienced business litigator and former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in the US Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Erica volunteered to take Mr. Villaverde’s case through the Federal Pro Bono Program. From that case, Erica learned of the injustice of Mr. Villaverde’s sentence and convinced Mr. Villaverde to apply for clemency through the Nevada Pardons Board.
Following his 2004 conviction on several charges, including robbery and first-degree murder, Mr. Villaverde received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Mr. Villaverde’s murder conviction was based on a felony-murder theory of liability, meaning he did not directly murder the victim. Instead, Mr. Villaverde tried to save the victim with CPR after his co-defendant strangled the victim to death during a robbery. Even though Mr. Villaverde was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, his co-defendant, who directly murdered the victim, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and only served seven years.
When Erica first took Mr. Villaverde's case, Nevada law appeared to create an insurmountable barrier to a reduced sentence. NRS 213.085(1) prohibits sentence commutation for a defendant who receives a sentence of death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole after July 1, 1995. Mr. Villaverde was sentenced in 2004; thus, the statute applied to any clemency he could receive.
Despite the statutory challenge, after meeting with Mr. Villaverde and hearing his compelling story of transformation over two decades of incarceration, Erica believed the Nevada Board of Pardons Commissioners (Board) might consider his clemency request based on the gross disparity between his sentence and the actual murderer’s sentence as well as his remarkable journey of rehabilitation. His prison record—backed up by written statements of several inmates—demonstrated exceptional personal growth and accountability, and he had the support of other inmates, correctional officers, and family and friends.
Despite opposition from the Clark County District Attorney, Erica filed an application with the Board seeking a commutation or pardon of Mr. Villaverde’s sentence, leaning into the Board’s powers to grant clemency. Because the pardon power is so rarely exercised, many inmates subject to NRS 213.085 believed there was no chance of clemency due to the statute’s restrictions on commutation. Nevertheless, the Board agreed to hear Mr. Villaverde’s case at its hearing on March 4, 2025. After Erica presented her argument on NRS 213.085, plus the reasons Mr. Villaverde deserved clemency, the Board heard Mr. Villaverde speak about his personal journey and considered statements from fellow prisoners, supervisors, family, and friends. Following this testimony, the Board issued an unprecedented decision for inmates subject to NRS 213.085. Mr. Villaverde was granted a conditional pardon on his murder charge (meaning he was no longer subject to life without the possibility of parole), and the robbery sentence was commuted to immediate parole eligibility. The next step for Mr. Villaverde is for his case to be heard by an upcoming parole board to determine if he can be released under parole supervision for his robbery charge.
By exercising its rare power of clemency through a pardon, the Board provided Mr. Villaverde with a genuine opportunity for reintegration into society. While this exercise of clemency may remain exceptional, this precedent-setting decision established that statutory barriers previously considered absolute may yield to compelling evidence of rehabilitation.
For Mr. Villaverde, who maintained unwavering determination through his incarceration, this relief represents a profound shift from hopelessness to possibility and an opportunity to demonstrate outside prison walls the transformation that began within them. For the many other inmates subject to NRS 213.085, the Board’s decision provides hope and an opportunity for clemency; it provides light at the end of the tunnel for those on a journey of rehabilitation.