50325 SPRINGMAN (STANLEY) VS. STATE
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
49481 OWENS VS. SANTA BARBARA VILLAGE
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
48590 MILLER (CLIFFORD) VS. STATE
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
48731 WARREN VS. BANCTECH, LLC C/W 48845
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
48845 WARREN VS. PARADISE SPA OWNERS ASS'N C/W 48731
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
48939 DOUMANI VS. DOUMANI
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
49377 MOON VS. SIERRA INT'L, INC.
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
50051 DAVESHWAR (SANJIV) VS. STATE
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Cherry/Saitta/Gibbons )
46917 ONE BEACON INSURANCE CO. VS. BARRETT
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Hardesty/Cherry/Gibbons )
48676 HAGER VS. MACTEC
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
Northern Panel (Hardesty/Cherry/Saitta )
Tuesday, January 6 - Nevada Supreme Court hears en banc arguments & administrative hearing on ADKT 411 (at 3 pm in Carson and Las Vegas)
Wednesday, January 7 - Nevada Supreme Court hears en banc arguments
Thursday, January 8 - Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day
The United States Supreme Court will meet for a private conference on Friday and will not hear arguments this week. Oral arguments will resume on January 12.
]]>Judges Mosley & Hardcastle
All civil cases:
Judges Bell, Smith, Walsh, Silver, Delaney
Civil, criminal and business court cases:
Judge Gonzalez
Civil and business court cases:
Judge Denton
Civil and criminal cases:
Judges Cory, Vega, Herndon, Cadish, Togliatti, Leavitt, Villani, Barker, Wall, Adair, Miley & Bixler
Civil, criminal and mental health:
Judge Glass
Civil and construction defect:
Judges Williams and Johnson
Construction defect, endoscopy pretrial, business court conflicts & settlement conferences:
Judge Earl
]]>All Dept. 8 (former Gates/now Smith) cases will transfer to Dept. 6 (Cadish).
All Dept. 6 (Cadish) cases will transfer to Dept. 8 (Gates/Smith).
All Dept. 7 (Bell/Bell) cases will transfer to Dept. 4 (Hardcastle).
All Dept. 15 (Loehrer/Silver) cases will transfer to Dept. 23 (vacant/Miley).
All Dept. 23 (vacant/Miley) cases will transfer to Dept. 15 (Loehrer/Silver). Dept. 15 will be located in courtroom 10A.
Criminal cases from Dept. 3 (Herndon) will transfer to Dept. 5 (Glass).
Civil cases from Dept. 3 (Herndon) will transfer to Dept. 17 (Villani).
Criminal cases from Dept. 5 (Glass) will transfer to Dept. 17 (Villani).
All Dept. 17 (Villani) cases will transfer to Dept. 3 (Herndon).
Criminal cases from Dept. 1 (Cory) will transfer to Dept. 20 (Wall).
Criminal cases from Dept. 20 (Wall) will transfer to Dept. 1 (Cory).
Dept. 7 (Bell/Bell) and Dept. 25 (new/Delaney) will have all civil cases, which will be oppulated via random assignment from existing civil cases. Dept. 25 will be located in courtroom 1B.
Probate cases will be heard by Judge Ritchie, Family Division Dept. H, at Family Court Courtroom 14.
]]>In reaching this decision, the Court criticizes the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Polk v. Sandoval: "The fundamental flaw, however, in Polk's analysis is the underlying assumption that Byford merely reaffirmed a distinction between 'willfulness,' 'deliberation,' and 'premeditation.' It was based on that assumption that Polk concluded that the Kazalyn instruction was erroneous and that the instructional error violated the federal Constitution by omitting an element of the offense. That underlying assumption ignores our jurisprudence."
The Court, however, also recognized that portions its holdings in Garner and Byford were not correct: "Despite our disagreement with the assumption underlying the decision in Polk, we acknowledge that the change effected by Byford properly applied to that case as a matter of due process. The United States Supreme Court has indicated that for purposes of due process, the relevant consideration 'is not just whether the law changed' but also 'when the law changed.' Thus, if the law changed to narrow the scope of a criminal statute before a defendant's conviction became final, then due process requires that the change be applied to that defendant. In such cases, retroactivity is not at issue; rather, due process requires that the conviction be set aside if required by the change in the law. In this respect, our decision in Garner erroneously afforded Byford complete prospectivity because as a matter of due process, the change effected in Byford applies to convictions that were not yet final at the time of the change. Polk involved such a conviction. This case, however, does not. Because Nika's conviction was final when Byford was decided, whether the change effected in Byford applies to Nika is a matter of retroactivity analysis. This court previously has held that Byford has no retroactive application on collateral review. We reaffirm that decision today."
]]>Lewis v. State - the Court finds plain error based upon a jury instruction concerning the value of a vehicle. The instruction erroneously instructed the jury to determine the value of the vehicle at the time the vehicle was taken, rather than at the time it was possessed. The result is a reduction from a class B felony to a class C and the Court vacates an order for $5,200 in restitution.
Johnson v. State - the merits of the issues presented are not all that interesting, but it is worth noting that the defendant was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder based upon the shotgun killings of three people inside an apartment -- proof once again that the Byford instructions on first-degree murder reflect a meaningful change from the Kazalyn instructions.
Bolden v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court had dismissed the petition because it was not served on the Attorney General and warden. The Court finds that the defects were curable and the petition should not have been dismissed on those grounds.
Ruffin v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition because the defendant did not attach trial transcripts to his petition. The Court found that there is no statute mandating that transcripts be attached and it would be unreasonable and wasteful for an indigent defendant to provide copies of transcripts that already exist in the district court and prosecutor's files. The procedural history is interesting in that the district court dismissed without prejudice a 1996 petition on this ground, the defendant filed two additional post-conviction petitions, the second and third petitions were dismissed as untimely, but the Court reached the merits of the first petition based upon the appeal from the third order.
Valdominos v. State - the Court reverses a judgment of conviction for two counts of sexual assault after finding prosecutorial misconduct and error in refusing to give a defense proposed jury instruction on the legal effect of multiple sexual acts. The Court finds that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making remarks which belittled or disparaged the defendant or his case and by improperly attacking the defendant's character. Although the defense did not object at trial, the Court finds plain error in the prosecutors statement that insinuated the defendant had raped another woman and was a serial rapist. Justice Maupin dissented -- he found that the State committed misconudct but believed the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.
]]>
48329 THOMAS VS. HARDWICK, M.D.
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
48609 NOGUERA (CARLOS) VS. STATE
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
It appears that this is a Clark County case in which the appellant is represented by the Clark County Public Defender's Office. It appears that he was was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. I do not know the issues presented.
48847 CHAVEZ (JAMES) VS. STATE
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
I have no details about this case.
49029 NC-DSH, INC. VS. GARNER
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
49198 FUNDERBURK (SAMAJA) VS. STATE
2:00 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
It appears that the appellant is represented by John Parris and that the appellant was convicted of several counts of robbery based upon a string of convenience store robberies. He was initially charged with dozens of kidnapping counts, but those charges were dropped at the opening of trial. I do not know the issues presented on appeal.
50443 SMITH (JACOB) VS. STATE
2:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
I have no details about this case.
50251 ADAMS VS. CITY OF SPARKS C/S NOS. 49504/49682
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
49682 ADAMS VS. CITY OF SPARKS C/W NOS. 49504/50251
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
49504 ADAMS VS. CITY OF SPARKS C/W NOS. 49682/50251
10:00 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
49512 RICO-ARREOLA (OSCAR) VS. STATE
10:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
It appears that this is a sexual assault case in which the defendant is represented by the Public Defender's Office. I do not know the issues presented on appeal.
50989 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES VS. BYMOEN (NRAP 5)
11:30 AM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
50497 FIELDS (JOHN) VS. STATE
1:30 PM 30 min
Carson City Courtroom - Second Floor
En Banc (Full Court )
I have no details about this case.
]]>Nellis Motors v. State, DMV - evidentiary hearing standard for revoking emission-inspector licenses
Settelmeyer v. Smith & Harmer - attorney fees and receivership funds
In re Lerner - public reprimand issued against attorney for assisting in the authorized practice of law
Howell v. State Engineer - judicial review of State Engineer decisions regarding title to water rights
]]>"The Commission on Judicial Selection has received applications from 15 attorneys to fill two vacancies at the Eighth Judicial District Family Court that are the result of Family Court judges being elected in November to other positions, Chief Justice William Maupin announced.
Family Court Judge Stefany Miley was elected to a civil/criminal judgeship, replacing Judge Elizabeth Halverson on the Department 23 bench. Judge Miley will be vacating her Department F seat at Family Court.
Family Court Judge Sandra Pomrenze was elected to the newly created Department P at Family Court and will be vacating her Department E seat at Family Court.
This will be the second interview and deliberation process that will be open to the public. The Commission voted on Dec. 18, 2007 to change its rules and open the traditionally confidential processes and provide access to most application information.
The applicants, in alphabetical order, are:
Philip J. Dabney, 49, Las Vegas, attorney in private practiceThe deadline for applications was 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 19, 2008.
The Commission will conduct interviews Feb. 9 and 10, 2009, in Las Vegas. Following the interviews, the Commission will submit the names of three nominees for each vacancy to Governor Jim Gibbons, who will appoint the replacements from the lists.
No time limit exists within which the Governor must make a judicial appointment. However, if appointments are not made within 30 days following submission of names by the Commission, the Governor may make no other appointments to public office."
Additional information is available at the link above.
]]>Margaret Rudin will receive a new trial. Duh. Who didn't see this coming. Apparently Chris Owens, who stated to the RJ "I think it's a joke that the taxpayers will have to fund a new trial for someone who had three attorneys." Gotta wonder if Mr. Owens would be so openly critical of a judge who was not retiring. And for that matter, what about the joke on the taxpayers who had to fund the trial for Bryan Crawley, who received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole following a month long trial - the same sentence he would have received had the Clark County District Attorney's Office agreed to plea the case prior to trial in lieu of seeking the death penalty. At a time when there is serious consideration of laying-off teachers and refusing hospital services because of financial concerns, did the D.A.'s office really need to incur well over $100,000 on behalf of the taxpayers in a case which could have easily been resolved prior to trial?
The Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment has issued its Final Report to the General Assembly. The Commission recommends abolishment of capital punishment after exploring racial disparities, jurisdictional disparities, socio-economic disparities, a comparison of costs associated with the death penalty, a comparison of the effects of prolonged court cases, the risk of innocent people being executed, and other issues.
The Death Penalty Information Center has issued its Year End Report. The Center notes that 2008 saw a 30-year low in new death sentences for the county at 111. There were 284 death sentences in 1999. There were 4 exonerations in 2008 and 37 executions, 95% of which were in the South.
]]>
Nevada Supreme Court scheduled to release opinions (the last opinion was issued on November 26)
Thursday, December 25
Holiday - courts closed
]]>Parker v. State - the Court finds a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause for convictions of both grand larceny auto and robbery. The Court rejects the State's argument that the taking of the car keys constituted a separate offense and notes that the keys were located inside the car. The grand larceny auto conviction is reversed.
State v. Mikayelyan - the Court affirms an order of the district court granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It's such a rare thing for state courts to grant habeas relief that it is worth noting here.
Colato v. State - the Court finds a Lozada violation based upon trial counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal.
Martin v. State - driving with studded snow tires is sufficient by itself to provide an arresting officer with probable cause to conduct a traffic stop. The Court finds, however, that the district court erred by denying Martin's application for deferral of judgment and treatment pursuant to recently enacted NRS 484.37941.
Pelat v. State - the Court reverses a judgment for misdemeanor battery and remands the case for further proceedings based upon the admission of bad act testimony without a limiting instruction.
Stinchfield v. State - the district court prematurely released a jury by letting the jury go after returning verdicts on the guilt phase. The jury should have determined the defendant's sentence. The Court finds that the district court used the appropriate remedy by selecting a new jury for the penalty hearing. The Court rejects the defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial.
]]>
Update: So apparently it was a hoax. That's not nice.
]]>As to the merits, the Circuit noted that it decided the same jury instruction in Polk v. Sandoval, and found that like Polk, Chambers' due process rights were violated by the instruction on premeditation. The Circuit found that the evidence on deliberation was particularly weak and that "if anything, the evidence presented at trial seems to weigh in favor of second-degree murder committed while in the throes of a heated argument."
Congrats to Linda Bell of the Federal Public Defender's Office (not for long, as she'll take the bench as a judge in January - this is a nice swan song).
]]>