years later. The order restored all of the civil rights listed in NRS 213.157 as amended in 2003.

Wright argues that the district court applied the wrong version of NRS 213.157 because he filed his petition before the July 2003 effective date of the amendment, and the State conceded during oral argument that the district court should have applied the 2001 version of the statute that was in effect when Wright filed his petition. In light of the State's concession and the presumption that statutes "only operate prospectively, unless it is clear that the drafters intended the statute to be applied retroactively," Sandpointe Apartments, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. „ 313 P.3d 849, 853 (2013), we agree that the district court erred by restoring Wright's civil rights pursuant to NRS 213.157 as amended in 2003.

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this matter to the district court with instructions to grant Wright's petition pursuant to NRS 213.157 (2001).

J.

Saitta

J.

Gibbons

cc: Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Churchill County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e