Nevada Law Day 2011

A panel of the Nevada Supreme Court will once again take justice on the road to two Nevada high schools by holding oral arguments on May 5 in West Wendover and on May 6 in Winnemucca.  The panel is composed of Justices Michael Cherry, Mark Gibbons, and Kristina Pickering.

The arguments coincide with the celebration of national Law Day, which traditionally is May 1, but has expanded into Law Month in Nevada because of the numerous events scheduled.

This will be the first time Supreme Court has held arguments in West Wendover on the Nevada-Utah border in Elko County.  The Supreme Court is making a return trip to Winnemucca in Humboldt County, where a panel of justices previously held oral arguments.

The Supreme Court has made it a relatively common occurrence to hold oral arguments at high schools around Nevada as part of its educational and outreach efforts.  In December, a Supreme Court panel held arguments at Pahrump Valley High School in Nye County.  In October, a Supreme Court panel held arguments at the Adelson Educational Campus in Las Vegas.  In November, the full Supreme Court held arguments at Reno High School.

“Holding court in communities around Nevada provides the students who attend with a unique educational opportunity,” said Justice Michael Cherry, who presides over the three-justice panel.

“As we do at every location, before arguments begin we will explain the argument process to the students and public attending.  The attorneys will give details of the case and explain their opposing positions,” Justice Cherry said.  “We will end the session by answering any questions the students might have about the appellate process, the Supreme Court, and the justices themselves.”

“We recognize that the court process is complex and sometimes confusing, particularly at the appellate level,” Justice Cherry said. “We want the students to understand the role of the Supreme Court as Nevada’s highest court and how we work to ensure that justice is served.”

Although the Supreme Court regularly webcasts oral arguments from its courtrooms in Carson City and Las Vegas, having an opportunity to personally watch the Court in action and interact directly with the justices is unique.

While the students will have the rare opportunity to question the justices about the appellate court process, the justices cannot answer questions about the case because of ethical rules.

All Supreme Court arguments, even those held at high schools, are public hearing open to all interested citizens.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has presided over oral arguments in rural communities, including Tonopah, Elko, Spring Creek, Virginia City, Ely, Pahrump, Winnemucca, and Fallon. The Supreme Court has also held oral arguments at high schools in Nevada’s urban centers of Las Vegas, Reno, and Sparks.  The Supreme Court has also conducted oral arguments at the National Judicial College in Reno and the William S. Boyd School of Law in Las Vegas.

The Nevada Supreme Court is composed of seven justices, but most cases are decided by three-justice panels to best utilize court time.  The Nevada Supreme Court is one of the busiest appellate courts in the nation. The full Supreme Court hears oral arguments in all death penalty cases and other cases the justices determine have important and unresolved legal issues to be decided.

CASE SYNOPSIS

May 5, 2011

West Wendover Government Complex

Justices Cherry, Gibbons, and Pickering

Harker (Lynden) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 57274

9:30 a.m.

This is Lynden Harker’s appeal of his conviction and the sentence he received in a botched robbery of an Ely convenience store. Harker entered the store with a knife in his hand and demanded that the clerk give him everything in the cash drawer.  Harker was intoxicated at the time.  When the clerk called 911, Harker left the store.  Harker entered an Alford plea to burglary with the use of a deadly weapon and assault with the use of a deadly weapon.  He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 62 to 156 months and 24 to 60 months.  This is Harker’s appeal from the judgment of conviction.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court abuse its discretion at sentencing because it failed to consider mitigating evidence?  (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion by focusing its sentencing determination on Harker’s past conduct?  (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to consider Harker’s drug evaluation and rehabilitation needs?

Fernandez (Salvana) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 57479

10:30 a.m.

Salvana Maria Fernandez is appealing her conviction for child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm.  Fernandez was convicted at her fourth trial in the death by malnutrition of her 7-month-old daughter.  At the first trial, an Elko County jury found Fernandez guilty of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. However, this court reversed the conviction after concluding that errors in the charging documents and the jury instructions may have allowed the jury to convict Fernandez on an unconstitutional basis.  On remand, Fernandez was tried three more times before a jury reached a unanimous verdict finding her guilty of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. This is Fernandez’s appeal from that judgment of conviction.  ISSUES: Did the district court improperly instruct the jury by using language that negated the “knowing” and “intentional” state of mind requirements this court identified in its disposition of her first appeal?

May 6, 2011,

Albert M. Lowry High School, Winnemucca

Justices Cherry, Gibbons, and Pickering

Hernandez (Raul) v. State of Nevada,

Docket No. 57320

9:00 a.m.

Raul Hernandez is appealing his conviction and sentence for felony possession of methamphetamine.  Drug-sniffing dogs alerted police to the presence of controlled substances inside a vehicle registered to Hernandez’s mother, which was parked on a street in Winnemucca.  Drug paraphernalia was found in the vehicle.  A police report regarding the incident was submitted to the district attorney’s office six months later and the district attorney obtained an arrest warrant for Hernandez.  He was taken into custody on the arrest warrant and, during a search incident to that arrest, police found two baggies of methamphetamine in his pants pocket.  A urine test also indicated that Hernandez was under the influence of methamphetamine.  As a result, Hernandez was charged with possession of a controlled substance and being under the influence of a controlled substance.  After the district court rejected Hernandez’ motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, he pleaded no contest to felony possession of a controlled substance.  The district court sentenced Hernandez to 12 to 34 months in prison but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation.  This is Hernandez’s appeal from the judgment of conviction.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err by denying Hernandez’s motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine because the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause? (2) Did the State engage in bad faith by not pursuing the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia until approximately six months after the investigation? (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion at sentencing by denying Hernandez’s application to enter a treatment or diversion program?

Millan-Rodriguez  v. Warden,

Docket No. 57269

10:00 a.m.

While confined at the Nevada Youth Training Authority in Elko, 15-year-old Victor Millan-Rodriguez and another juvenile battered a staff member with a metal weight and fled from the facility.  Both juveniles were apprehended a short time later.  Millan-Rodriguez was prosecuted as an adult for multiple charges including attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon.  He pleaded guilty to battery by a prisoner in lawful custody with a deadly weapon and escape.  Millan-Rodriguez subsequently filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.  The district court denied the petition and this is Millan-Rodriguez’s appeal from that decision.  ISSUES: Millan-Rodriguez contends that the district court erred by denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, (2) file an appeal or advise him of his right to file an appeal, (3) present mitigating evidence at sentencing regarding Millan-Rodriguez’s childhood and family life and his participation in the charged offenses, and (4) object to the district court's improper canvass at the change of plea hearing.

Disclaimer

(These synopses are intended to provide only general information about the cases before the Nevada Supreme Court.  They are not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)