That distinction is important when discussing the case today because social-media posts have circulated different numbers.
A viral headline claiming that she received a 58-year sentence does not match the official information available from Washoe County or the Nevada Supreme Court.
The Victim’s Family
Behind the legal arguments was a family dealing with the death of a teenage daughter.
Chloe Edwards was a student at North Valleys High School in Reno.
Her death prompted a community vigil, and her family publicly remembered her as a young girl whose life had been cut short.
During the sentencing proceedings, Edwards’ sister spoke about the consequences of the killing.
According to local reporting, she told the court that she was not seeking revenge but wanted justice and peace, while emphasizing the profound effect the death had on her family. (2 News Nevada)
For the victim’s relatives, the case was not simply a question about sentencing policy.
It was about the permanent loss of someone they loved.
No prison sentence could restore Edwards’ life.
The Question of Juvenile Justice
The case also illustrates one of the most difficult issues in criminal justice: how society should respond when a very young person commits an extremely serious offense.
Teenagers are legally and developmentally different from adults in many respects. Their judgment, impulse control and ability to anticipate long-term consequences are still developing.
At the same time, a victim who dies as the result of a violent act does not become less of a victim because the person responsible was young.
That creates a difficult tension.
Should the justice system emphasize punishment and accountability?
Should it emphasize rehabilitation?
How should the law balance the age of the offender against the seriousness of the offense?
The Hernandez-Rivas case became an example of those competing considerations.
The Nevada Supreme Court Later Reviewed the Case
The case did not end with the original sentencing.
In 2025, Hernandez-Rivas appealed her conviction and sentence to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The court considered, among other arguments, her contention that her age should affect the jurisdiction of the case and the punishment imposed.
The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the argument that her “mental age” should determine whether she could be prosecuted as an adult, explaining that the relevant legal requirement uses chronological age. The court noted that Hernandez-Rivas was 14 at the time of the offense and had stipulated to adult certification. (FindLaw)
The court also reviewed her argument concerning the sentence.
