Rule 5.102 governs when a sending state must retake a supervised individual following the conviction for a new felony offense or a violent crime, as defined by the compact. Retaking under this rule is not automatic: It is triggered only upon the receiving state's request. Even when a request is made, the timing of retaking is controlled by Rule 5.102. Under Rule 5.102, the sending state may not execute retaking until the receiving state has disposed of the new criminal charges, the sentence has been satisfied, or the individual has been released to supervision for the subsequent offense, unless both states mutually agree to an earlier retaking. See, e.g., Ayyad v. State, No. 2025 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 597, at *3 (Oct. 28, 2025) (sending state not required to retake while supervised individual still serving sentence for new felonies in receiving state).
Decisions to require retaking under Rule 5.102 should be individualized and outcome focused. Courts and supervising agencies in the receiving state should consider whether retaking will improve public safety or supervision outcomes, rather than relying solely on the existence of a new conviction. The receiving state plays a key role in this determination, particularly when a new conviction results in in an additional term of supervision in that state. Requiring retaking in cases where the individual lacks stable housing or support in the sending state, may be destabilizing and undermine successful supervision.