Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • 2 7 12 Coughlin's Opening Brief 22176 60838 CR11-2064-2691386 (Opening Brief)

    Caricato da

    NevadaGadfly
    19 visualizzazioni9 pagine
    NRAP 28(j) Sanctions for inadequate briefs.  All briefs under this Rule must be concise, presented with accuracy, logically arranged with proper headings and free from burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial or scandalous matters. Briefs that are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court, and the court may assess attorney fees or other monetary sanctions against the offending lawyer. Such does not seem to allow for an Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript. It was held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state's denial of appellate review solely on account of a defendant's inability to pay for a transcript. Indigent Coughlin had a right to a transcript and even if NRAP applied here (NRAP 9 would not even require a transcript necessarily) which it does not, Coughlin's right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendments due process and equal protection clauses operates to defeat Judge Elliott's approach. The defendant's right to a transcript is governed by statute. United States v. Mosiman, 604 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Wis. 1985) "DENIAL OF DAILY COPY OF TRANSCRIPT Petitioner contends that the trial court's refusal to supply petitioner with a daily copy of trial minutes amounted to a denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. This claim must fail. The Second Circuit has held that the right of an indigent defendant to a daily transcript is not guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 491 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058, 105 S.Ct. 1772, 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985). A state need not provide an indigent defendant with all the benefits enjoyed by a wealthy one. Id. at 491. The decision whether to supply an indigent defendant with free daily trial transcripts is one that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Rucker, 586 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1978). In the case at bar, petitioner suffered [723 F.Supp. 1011] no actual harm from being denied daily trial transcripts. The judge denied the request because there was a shortage of available court reporters and the judge noted that the trial would be a relatively simple one. Further, the court allowed the court reporter to read back portions of testimony requested by petitioner's counsel at the close of the presentation of witnesses." COLON v. SMITH NO. 84 CIV. 3144 (WCC). 723 F.Supp. 1003 (1989) http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891726723FSupp1003_11601.xml/COLON%20v.%20SMITH http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396260/10-26-11-Coughlin-s-Application-and-Affidavit-for-Appointment-of-Counsel-and-Judge-Howard-s-Order-Denying-Violate-2008-Indigent-Defense-Order-Judicial RMC Judge Howard's 12/15/11 Order reads: "On November 30, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011. Additionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Recusal and Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense. Appellant Coughlin requested that he be provided the trial transcript at public expense on the basis that he was indigent. On November 14, 2011, (NOTE: Judge Howard misstates the filing date of such by one month, as such was filed on 12/14/11: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396475/12-14-11-Coughlin-s-IFP-Motion-Publication-Transcript-Public-Expense-22176-60838-0204 ) Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis wherein he seeks a waiver of certain fees due to his asserted indigence.... B. MOTION FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE and MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendant Coughlin cites to NRS 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    NRAP 28(j) Sanctions for inadequate briefs.  All briefs under this Rule must be concise, presented with accuracy, logically arranged with proper headings and free from burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial or scandalous matters. Briefs that are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court, and the court may assess attorney fees or other monetary sanctions against the offending lawyer. Such does not seem to allow for an Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript. It was held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state's denial of appellate review solely on account of a defendant's inability to pay for a transcript. Indigent Coughlin had a right to a transcript and even if NRAP applied here (NRAP 9 would not even require a transcript necessarily) which it does not, Coughlin's right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendments due process and equal protection clauses operates to defeat Judge Elliott's approach. The defendant's right to a transcript is governed by statute. United States v. Mosiman, 604 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Wis. 1985) "DENIAL OF DAILY COPY OF TRANSCRIPT Petitioner contends that the trial court's refusal to supply petitioner with a daily copy of trial minutes amounted to a denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. This claim must fail. The Second Circuit has held that the right of an indigent defendant to a daily transcript is not guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 491 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058, 105 S.Ct. 1772, 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985). A state need not provide an indigent defendant with all the benefits enjoyed by a wealthy one. Id. at 491. The decision whether to supply an indigent defendant with free daily trial transcripts is one that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Rucker, 586 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1978). In the case at bar, petitioner suffered [723 F.Supp. 1011] no actual harm from being denied daily trial transcripts. The judge denied the request because there was a shortage of available court reporters and the judge noted that the trial would be a relatively simple one. Further, the court allowed the court reporter to read back portions of testimony requested by petitioner's counsel at the close of the presentation of witnesses." COLON v. SMITH NO. 84 CIV. 3144 (WCC). 723 F.Supp. 1003 (1989) http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891726723FSupp1003_11601.xml/COLON%20v.%20SMITH http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396260/10-26-11-Coughlin-s-Application-and-Affidavit-for-Appointment-of-Counsel-and-Judge-Howard-s-Order-Denying-Violate-2008-Indigent-Defense-Order-Judicial RMC Judge Howard's 12/15/11 Order reads: "On November 30, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011. Additionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Recusal and Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense. Appellant Coughlin requested that he be provided the trial transcript at public expense on the basis that he was indigent. On November 14, 2011, (NOTE: Judge Howard misstates the filing date of such by one month, as such was filed on 12/14/11: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396475/12-14-11-Coughlin-s-IFP-Motion-Publication-Transcript-Public-Expense-22176-60838-0204 ) Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis wherein he seeks a waiver of certain fees due to his asserted indigence.... B. MOTION FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE and MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendant Coughlin cites to NRS 1

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    19 visualizzazioni9 pagine

    2 7 12 Coughlin's Opening Brief 22176 60838 CR11-2064-2691386 (Opening Brief)

    Caricato da

    NevadaGadfly
    NRAP 28(j) Sanctions for inadequate briefs.  All briefs under this Rule must be concise, presented with accuracy, logically arranged with proper headings and free from burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial or scandalous matters. Briefs that are not in compliance may be disregarded or stricken, on motion or sua sponte by the court, and the court may assess attorney fees or other monetary sanctions against the offending lawyer. Such does not seem to allow for an Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript. It was held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state's denial of appellate review solely on account of a defendant's inability to pay for a transcript. Indigent Coughlin had a right to a transcript and even if NRAP applied here (NRAP 9 would not even require a transcript necessarily) which it does not, Coughlin's right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendments due process and equal protection clauses operates to defeat Judge Elliott's approach. The defendant's right to a transcript is governed by statute. United States v. Mosiman, 604 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Wis. 1985) "DENIAL OF DAILY COPY OF TRANSCRIPT Petitioner contends that the trial court's refusal to supply petitioner with a daily copy of trial minutes amounted to a denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. This claim must fail. The Second Circuit has held that the right of an indigent defendant to a daily transcript is not guaranteed by the Constitution. United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 491 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1058, 105 S.Ct. 1772, 84 L.Ed.2d 832 (1985). A state need not provide an indigent defendant with all the benefits enjoyed by a wealthy one. Id. at 491. The decision whether to supply an indigent defendant with free daily trial transcripts is one that rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Rucker, 586 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1978). In the case at bar, petitioner suffered [723 F.Supp. 1011] no actual harm from being denied daily trial transcripts. The judge denied the request because there was a shortage of available court reporters and the judge noted that the trial would be a relatively simple one. Further, the court allowed the court reporter to read back portions of testimony requested by petitioner's counsel at the close of the presentation of witnesses." COLON v. SMITH NO. 84 CIV. 3144 (WCC). 723 F.Supp. 1003 (1989) http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891726723FSupp1003_11601.xml/COLON%20v.%20SMITH http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396260/10-26-11-Coughlin-s-Application-and-Affidavit-for-Appointment-of-Counsel-and-Judge-Howard-s-Order-Denying-Violate-2008-Indigent-Defense-Order-Judicial RMC Judge Howard's 12/15/11 Order reads: "On November 30, 2011, Defendant Coughlin was found guilty of the offense of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011. Additionally, Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Recusal and Motion for Publication of Transcript at Public Expense. Appellant Coughlin requested that he be provided the trial transcript at public expense on the basis that he was indigent. On November 14, 2011, (NOTE: Judge Howard misstates the filing date of such by one month, as such was filed on 12/14/11: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225396475/12-14-11-Coughlin-s-IFP-Motion-Publication-Transcript-Public-Expense-22176-60838-0204 ) Defendant Coughlin filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis wherein he seeks a waiver of certain fees due to his asserted indigence.... B. MOTION FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE and MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendant Coughlin cites to NRS 1

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 9

    1

    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    Document Code: 1425
    Zach Coughlin
    Nevada Bar No: 9473
    1422 E. 9
    th
    t. !2
    "eno# N$ %9512
    &ele: 775'33%'%11%
    (a): 949'**7'74+2
    ,ttorne- .or /ro e ,00ellant denied i)th ,mendment "ight &o Coun1el
    2N &3E EC4ND 56D2C2,7 D2&"2C& C46"& 4( &3E &,&E 4( NE$,D,
    2N ,ND (4" &3E C46N&8 4( 9,34E
    Z,C3 C46:372N;
    ,00ellant#
    v1.
    Cit- o. "eno;
    "e10ondent.
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <
    Case No: CR11-2064
    Dept No: 10
    APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
    C4=E N49# ,00ellant# Zach Coughlin# >- and through him1el. a1 he ?a1 denied hi1 i)th
    ,mendment "ight &o Coun1el# and .ile1 thi1 ,00ellant@1 40ening Brie.: &hi1 =otion in i1 >a1ed
    u0on the 0leading1 and 0a0er1 on .ile in thi1 matter# >oth in thi1 a00eal and the underl-ing "=C 11
    C" 2217* and the .ollo?ing legal argument. &he under1igned .ile1 thi1 40ening Brie. ?ith the intent
    to .ile a u00lemental to it or a Notice o. Errata ?ith re10ect to thi1 .iling# and a more com0lete
    40ening Brie. >- (e>ruar- *# 2+12. &hi1 i1 >eing done due to con.u1ion a1 to ?hether the A?ithin 3+
    da-1B deadline# ?hich ?ould 1eam to .all on aturda-# (e>ruar- 4
    th
    # 2+12# ?ould allo? .iling timel- a
    - 1 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    F I L E D
    Electronically
    02-07-2012:12:19:36 AM
    Joey Orduna Hastings
    Clerk of the Court
    Transaction # 2747319
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    Brie. on (e>ruar- *# 2+12. 2n an a>undance o. caution# thi1 i1 1u>mitted to at lea1t get 1omething
    .iled.
    LEGAL ARGUMENT
    2ndeed# N"C/ "67E 5. E"$2CE ,ND (272N: 4( /7E,D2N: ,ND 4&3E"
    /,/E" reCuire1 that:
    ADa< ervice: 9hen "eCuired. E)ce0t a1 other?i1e 0rovided in the1e rule1# ever- order
    reCuired >- it1 term1 to >e 1erved#... D><D2< ervice under thi1 rule i1 made >-: D,<
    Delivering a co0- to the attorne- or the 0art- >-: Di< handing it to the attorne- or to the
    0art-; Dii< leaving it at the attorne-E1 or 0art-E1 o..ice ?ith a clerF or other 0er1on in
    charge# or i. there i1 no one in charge# leaving it in a con10icuou1 0lace in the o..ice;
    or Diii< i. the o..ice i1 clo1ed or the 0er1on to >e 1erved ha1 no o..ice# leaving it at the
    0er1onE1 d?elling hou1e or u1ual 0lace o. a>ode ?ith 1ome 0er1on o. 1uita>le age and
    di1cretion re1iding thing a co0- >- electronic mean1 if the attorney or the party
    served has onsented to servie !y e"etroni #eans... &he 1erved attorne-E1 or
    0art-E1 con1ent to 1ervice >- electronic mean1 1hall >e e$press"y stated and fi"ed in
    %ritin& %ith the "er' of the o(rt and 1erved on the other 0artie1 to the action. &he
    ?ritten con1ent 1hall identi.-: Di< the 0er1on1 u0on ?hom 1ervice mu1t >e made; Dii<
    the a00ro0riate addre11 or location .or 1uch 1ervice# 1uch a1 the electronic'mail addre11
    or .ac1imile num>er; Diii< the .ormat to >e u1ed .or attachment1; and Div< an- other
    limit1 on the 1co0e or duration o. the con1ent. ,n attorne-E1 or 0art-E1 con1ent 1hall
    remain e..ective until e)0re11l- revoFed or until the re0re1entation o. a 0art- change1
    through entr-# ?ithdra?al# or 1u>1titution o. coun1el. ,n attorne- or 0art- ?ho ha1
    con1ented to 1ervice >- electronic mean1 1hall# ?ithin 1+ da-1 a.ter an- change o.
    electronic'mail addre11 or .ac1imile num>er# 1erve and .ile notice o. the ne?
    electronic'mail addre11 or .ac1imile num>er. D3< ervice >- electronic mean1 under
    "ule 5D><D2<DD< i1 not e..ective i. the 0art- maFing 1ervice learn1 that the attem0ted
    1ervice did not reach the 0er1on to >e 1erved. D4< /roo. o. 1ervice ma- >e made >-
    certi.icate o. an attorne- or o. the attorne-E1 em0lo-ee# or >- ?ritten admi11ion# or >-
    a..idavit# or other 0roo. 1ati1.actor- to the court. (ailure to maFe 0roo. o. 1ervice 1hall
    not a..ect the validit- o. 1ervice.
    2t ?a1 rever1i>le error in the underl-ing matter ?here the Court: re.u1ed to grant a
    continuance o. the Novem>er 3+
    th
    # 2+11 &rial# .ailed to 0rovide the i)th ,mendment1 guarantee o. a
    "ight to Coun1el >oth in the 0etit the.t &rial and once even the 10ecter o. a ummar- Contem0t
    .inding ?a1 announced. 9a- too 0reGudicial to den- the right to coun1el then announce the Court
    - 2 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    ?ould nail the under1igned ?ith contem0t .or attem0ting to Healou1l- advocate on hi1 o?n >ehal..
    (urther# re.u1ing to allo? inCuir- into the 1tated retaliator- motive1 o. 9al'=art and it1 ,11et
    /rotection divi1ion# e10eciall- vi1 a vi1# 9al'=art@1 e1ta>li1hed 0ractice# even >- it1 manager1# o.
    outright l-ing the the 0u>lic re0eatedl- a>out the term1 and e..ect o. the 0o1ted "eturn /olic-
    a00lica>le to 0urcha1e1 in 9al'=art 1tore1. ,dditionall-# 0ro1ecutorial mi1conduct# D1u>orning
    0erGur-# .ailing to turn over di1cover- in a timel- manner# l-ing a>out ?hether the "eno Cit-
    ,ttorne- had received an-thing .rom the "2C# etc< Gu1ti.- overturning the verdict. ,dditionall-# the
    0ro1ecution1 im0ro0er motive in thi1 retaliator- 0ro1ecution 1tem1 .rom a de1ire to undermine the
    under1igned@1 credi>ilit- and a>ilit- to litigate e10eciall- vi1 a vi1 the ?rong.ul arre1t# negligent
    hiring training and 1u0ervi1ion la?1uit that the "eno Cit- ,ttorne- received ?arning o. ?ell in
    advance o. the arre1t in thi1 matter. (urther im0ro0rietie1 and due 0roce11 de.iciencie1 in the "eno
    =unici0al Court and it1 .iling o..ice Gu1ti.- overturning the conviction. ,dditionall-# a Notice o.
    Entr- o. 4rder here .rom the "=C i1 liFel- reCuired given the 4rder ?a1 com0lete out1ide the
    0re1ence o. one o. the 0artie1 Dmade in a>1entia<# and there.ore rendition o. 4rder i1 liFel- not
    1u..icient. (urther# the 0ro1ecution did not meet it1 >urden to 0rove an- o. the element1 o. the crime
    charged: ADa< 2ntentionall- 1teal1# taFe1 and carrie1 a?a-# lead1 a?a- or drive1 a?a-...B Each o. the
    three ?itne11e1 contradicted them1elve1 a1 the material .act1# including ?hether the 6/C at i11ue
    a00eared on >oth recei0t1 and ?hether the under1igned 0rovided hi1 driver@1 licen1e to the "2C
    4..icer1# ?hich the video 1ho?ed he did# and there.ore# the 0ro>a>le cau1e to conduct a 1earch
    incident to a cu1todial arre1t i1 vitiated and 0erGur- a00arent >- all three ?itne11e1 and mi1conduct >-
    the "eno Cit- ,ttorne-. ,ll argument1 made >elo?# ?hether at &rial or in the 0a0er1 on .ile or
    other?i1e 1u>mitted to the "=C are here>- incor0orated >- re.erence.
    - 3 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    "=C ec. %.1+.+4+. ' /etit larcen-: 2t i1 unla?.ul .or an- 0er1on to taFe or carr- a?a- the
    0ro0ert- o. another ?ith the intent to de0rive the o?ner o. hi1 0ro0ert- therein# in an- value le11 than
    I25+.++# and .or hi1 conviction there.or# he 1hall >e .ined in an amount not more than I1#+++.++
    andJor >e incarcerated not more than 1i) month1. 2n addition to an- other 0enalt-# the court 1hall
    order the 0er1on to 0a- re1titution.B DCode 19**# K 11.12.++3; 4rd. No. 27*2# K 1# %'13'79; 4rd. No.
    3%**# K 1# 9'25'%9; 4rd. No. 4%15# K 1# 1+'2%'97; 4rd. No. 5+5%# K 1# 11'12'99< tate la? re.erence
    L /etit larcen-# N" 2+5.24+. N" 2+5.24+ /etit larcen-; 0enalt-. 1. E)ce0t a1 other?i1e
    0rovided in N" 2+5.22+# 2+5.22*# 2+5.22% and 475.1+5# a 0er1on commit1 0etit larcen- i. the
    0er1on: Da< 2ntentionall- 1teal1# taFe1 and carrie1 a?a-# lead1 a?a- or drive1 a?a-: D1<
    /er1onal good1 or 0ro0ert-# ?ith a value o. le11 than I*5+# o?ned >- another 0er1on; D2<
    Bedding# .urniture or other 0ro0ert-# ?ith a value o. le11 than I*5+# ?hich the 0er1on# a1 a lodger# i1
    to u1e in or ?ith hi1 or her lodging and ?hich i1 o?ned >- another 0er1on; or D3< "eal
    0ro0ert-# ?ith a value o. le11 than I*5+# that the 0er1on ha1 converted into 0er1onal 0ro0ert- >-
    1evering it .rom real 0ro0ert- o?ned >- another 0er1on. D>< 2ntentionall- 1teal1# taFe1 and carrie1
    a?a-# lead1 a?a-# drive1 a?a- or entice1 a?a- one or more dome1ticated animal1 or dome1ticated
    >ird1# ?ith an aggregate value o. le11 than I*5+# o?ned >- another 0er1on. 2. 6nle11 a greater
    0enalt- i1 0rovided 0ur1uant to N" 2+5.2*7# a 0er1on ?ho commit1 0etit larcen- i1 guilt- o. a
    mi1demeanor. 2n addition to an- other 0enalt-# the court 1hall order the 0er1on to 0a- re1titution.
    M1911 CN/ K 374; , 1947# %5; 1949# 127; 1943 NC7 K 1+324OLDN" , 19*5# 3++# 1++7; 19*7#
    5++; 19*9# 531; 19%3# 547; 19%5# 751; 19%9# 1434; 1995# 13; 1997# 342# 1114; 1999# 31+9; 2++9#
    1243; 2+11# 1*5< N" 2+5.251 Determination o. value o. 0ro0ert- involved in larcen- o..en1e.
    (or the 0ur0o1e1 o. N" 2+5.2175 to 2+5.27+7# inclu1ive: 1. &he value o. 0ro0ert- involved in a
    larcen- o..en1e 1hall >e deemed to >e the highe1t value attri>uta>le to the 0ro0ert- >- an- rea1ona>le
    - 4 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    1tandard. 2. &he value o. 0ro0ert- involved in larcen- o..en1e1 committed >- one or more 0er1on1
    0ur1uant to a 1cheme or continuing cour1e o. conduct ma- >e aggregated in determining the grade o.
    the larcen- o..en1e1. :rant v. tate# 24 /.3d 7*1 234 7,"CEN8 23422 /ro1ecution and /uni1hment
    23422DB< Evidence 234 54 9eight and u..icienc- 234F57 F. 2ntent. Nev.#2++1 "eCui1ite .inding o.
    intent to 0ermanentl- de0rive o?ner o. 0ro0ert- ?a1 1u00orted in grand larcen- 0ro1ecution >-
    evidence that de.endant ?a1 1een tucFing ca1ino 0atron@1 0ur1e into hi1 GacFet 1everal time1 and
    heading to?ard1 lo>>- and e)it o. ca1ino. N.".. 2+5.22+ # 1u>d. 1# 2+5.222# 1u>d1. 2# 3. 3ogan v.
    tate# 53* /.2d 1+2% Nev.#1975 &here ?a1 1u..icient evidence o. .eloniou1 a10ortation1 o. air
    conditioner .rom .enced com0ound at rear o. 1tore to 1u00ort conviction1 .or grand larcen-
    not?ith1tanding de.endant1@ a11ertion1 that the- .ound the air conditioner out1ide the .ence and
    >elieved it ?a1 a>andoned. N.".. 2+5.22+ . tate v. /hi001# 2%2 /. 1+24 Nev.#1929 Evidence in
    0ro1ecution .or larcen- o. mining 0ro0ert- held not to 1ho? code.endant@1 intent to taFe# 1teal# or
    carr- a?a- 0er1onal 0ro0ert-. tate v. 9ard# 1+ /. 133 Nev.#1%%* &he .act1 that de.endant tooF a
    hor1e .rom the 0remi1e1 o. it1 o?ner ?ithout hi1 Fno?ledge# and rode it .or a certain di1tance# and
    then a>andoned it# a.ter removing and concealing the 1addle and >lanFet# are 1u..icient to Gu1ti.- a
    .inding o. intent 0ermanentl- to de0rive the o?ner o. hi1 0ro0ert-# although de.endant te1ti.ie1 that
    he had engaged another to taFe it >acF# and ?hen he did not a00ear he e)0ected 1ome one to taFe it
    >acF# or that the animal ?ould 1tra- >acF. N" 2+5.+%24 ADe0riveB de.ined. ADe0riveB mean1 to
    ?ithhold a 0ro0ert- intere1t o. another 0er1on 0ermanentl- or .or 1o long a time that a 1u>1tantial
    0ortion o. it1 value# u1e.ulne11 or enGo-ment i1 lo1t# or to ?ithhold it ?ith the intent to re1tore it onl-
    u0on the 0a-ment o. a re?ard or other com0en1ation# or to tran1.er or di10o1e o. it 1o that it i1
    unliFel- to >e recovered. N" 2+5.+%32 ,ction1 ?hich con1titute the.t. 1. E)ce0t a1 other?i1e
    0rovided in 1u>1ection 2# a 0er1on commit1 the.t i.# ?ithout la?.ul authorit-# the 0er1on Fno?ingl-:
    - 5 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    Da< Control1 an- 0ro0ert- o. another 0er1on ?ith the intent to de0rive that 0er1on o. the 0ro0ert-.
    D>< Convert1# maFe1 an unauthoriHed tran1.er o. an intere1t in# or ?ithout authoriHation control1
    an- 0ro0ert- o. another 0er1on# or u1e1 the 1ervice1 or 0ro0ert- o. another 0er1on entru1ted to him or
    her or 0laced in hi1 or her 0o11e11ion .or a limited# authoriHed 0eriod o. determined or 0re1cri>ed
    duration or .or a limited u1e. Dc< 4>tain1 real# 0er1onal or intangi>le 0ro0ert- or the 1ervice1 o.
    another 0er1on >- a material mi1re0re1entation ?ith intent to de0rive that 0er1on o. the 0ro0ert- or
    1ervice1. ,1 u1ed in thi1 0aragra0h# Amaterial mi1re0re1entationB mean1 the u1e o. an- 0reten1e# or
    the maFing o. an- 0romi1e# re0re1entation or 1tatement o. 0re1ent# 0a1t or .uture .act ?hich i1
    .raudulent and ?hich# ?hen u1ed or made# i1 in1trumental in cau1ing the ?rong.ul control or tran1.er
    o. 0ro0ert- or 1ervice1. &he 0reten1e ma- >e ver>al or it ma- >e a 0h-1ical act. Dd< Come1 into
    control o. lo1t# mi1laid or mi1delivered 0ro0ert- o. another 0er1on under circum1tance1 0roviding
    mean1 o. inCuir- a1 to the true o?ner and a00ro0riate1 that 0ro0ert- to hi1 or her o?n u1e or that o.
    another 0er1on ?ithout rea1ona>le e..ort1 to noti.- the true o?ner. De< Control1 0ro0ert- o.
    another 0er1on Fno?ing or having rea1on to Fno? that the 0ro0ert- ?a1 1tolen. D.< 4>tain1
    1ervice1 or 0art1# 0roduct1 or other item1 related to 1uch 1ervice1 ?hich the 0er1on Fno?1 are
    availa>le onl- .or com0en1ation ?ithout 0a-ing or agreeing to 0a- com0en1ation or divert1 the
    1ervice1 o. another 0er1on to hi1 or her o?n >ene.it or that o. another 0er1on ?ithout la?.ul authorit-
    to do 1o. Dg< &aFe1# de1tro-1# conceal1 or di10o1e1 o. 0ro0ert- in ?hich another 0er1on ha1 a
    1ecurit- intere1t# ?ith intent to de.raud that 0er1on. Dh< Commit1 an- act that i1 declared to >e the.t
    >- a 10eci.ic 1tatute. Di< Dra?1 or 0a11e1 a checF# and in e)change o>tain1 0ro0ert- or 1ervice1# i.
    the 0er1on Fno?1 that the checF ?ill not >e 0aid ?hen 0re1ented. DG< 4>tain1 ga1oline or other .uel
    or automotive 0roduct1 ?hich are availa>le onl- .or com0en1ation ?ithout 0a-ing or agreeing to 0a-
    com0en1ation. 2. , 0er1on ?ho commit1 an act that i1 0rohi>ited >- 1u>1ection 1 ?hich involve1
    - 6 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    the re0air o. a vehicle ha1 not committed the.t unle11# >e.ore the re0air ?a1 made# the 0er1on received
    a ?ritten e1timate o. the co1t o. the re0air. 2t1 ?a1 rever1i>le error ?here 5udge 3o?ard Did not
    com0l- ?ith the a>ove and the >urden o. 0roo. ?a1 not met in con1ieration .o the evidence o..ered.
    (urther# ,00ellant ?a1 re.u1ed hi1 o00ortunit- to te1ti.- or 0ut on evidence# Cit- o. "eno 1u>orned
    0erGur-# ect# etc. 2ntent ?a1 mi11ing too# and# a11umign the accu1ation1 are true# an-one con1uming
    that man- o. tho1e cough dro01 ?ould not >e ca0a>le o. .orming the reCui1ite intent. Driver@1 licen1e
    ?a1 o..ered# there.ore rever1i>le error to allo? >a1ing the 1earch on .ailure to 0rovide driver@1 licen1e
    or 1u..icent indenti.-ing in.ormation to i11ue a citation. (ruit o. 0oi1on tree.
    ,00ellant1 incor0orate1 >- re.erence all argument1# .iling1# corre10ondence etc made in the
    trial court or 1o .ar in thi1 a00eal# e10eciall- tho1e in the 400o1ition to =otion to Di1mi11.
    P &he 2++% 7imited Court 5uri1diction Bench BooF and it1 2+1+ u00lement 1et .orth a num>er
    o. a00eala>le i11ue1 in thi1 matter# including:
    6==,"8 /6N23=EN& ummar- 0uni1hment i1 onl- 0ermi11i>le .or direct contem0t1 Dtho1e
    act1 identi.ied in N" 22.+1+ committed ?ithin the immediate vie? and 0re1ence o. the Gudge<.
    Que1tion1 to anal-He .or ummar- /uni1hment R 21 the contem0t eligi>le .or 1ummar-
    0uni1hmentS S ,ct or omi11ion 0er.ormed in 0re1ence o. Court S 2mmediate Gudicial action ?a1
    reCuired to maintain or re1tore authorit-JGu1ticeJdignit- o. the Court S 9a1 there an order that 10elled
    out the detail1 o. com0liance in clear# 10eci.ic and unam>iguou1 term1 1o that the 0er1on 1hould have
    readil- Fno?n e)actl- ?hat dutie1 or o>ligation1 ?ere im0o1ed on himS S 21 the contem0t on in
    ?hich the 0er1on ha1 omitted 0er.orming an act ?hich i1 -et in the 0o?er o. the 0er1on to 0er.ormS R
    9hat t-0e o. contem0t e)i1t1S S Civil in ?hich 0uni1hment i1 a00ro0riateS S Civil in ?hich
    im0ri1onment to .orce 0er.ormance i1 a00ro0riateS S Criminal in ?hich adGudication o. a
    mi1demeanor i1 a00ro0riateS R 9hat i1 the 1entence im0o1edS S 2m0ri1onment in count- Gail not to
    e)ceed 25 da-1 S (ine not to e)ceed I5++ D0a-a>le to count-Jcit- trea1urer< S Both a>ove mentioned
    .ine and im0ri1onment S 2. civil # e)0en1e1# including attorne- .ee1# o. inGured 0art- i. the contem0t
    involve1 di1o>edience to a la?.ul order or ?rit S 21 the contem0t one that involve1 .ailure to do an
    act ?hich i1 -et in the 0o?er o. the 0er1on to 0er.ormS 2. 1o# i1 im0ri1onment in the count- Gail
    nece11ar- or a00ro0riate to .orce the 0er1on to com0l- ?ith the actS S 21 the contem0t .ailure to
    a00ear or te1ti.- >e.ore a grand Gur-S 2. 1o# im0ri1onment mu1t cea1e ?hen the grand Gur- i1 no
    longer em0anelled. R 3ave -ou com0leted the ?ritten orderS D=u1t have a ?ritten order .iled< S
    "ecite1 the .act1 con1tituting the contem0t in the immediate vie? and 0re1ence o. the court or
    Gudge; S (ind1 the 0er1on guilt- o. the contem0t; and S
    - 7 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    /re1cri>e1 the 0uni1hment .or the contem0
    )ON)LUSION
    Ba1ed u0on the .oregoing the under1igned re10ect.ull- reCue1t1 that thi1 Court vacate#
    overturn# or other?i1e 1et a1ide the underl-ing 5udgment and 4rder o. Conviction in thi1 matter
    D"=C 11 C" 2217*<. ,00ellant Declare1 under 0enalt- o. 0erGur-# 0ur1uant to N" 53.+45# that the
    a11ertion1 in thi1 document are true and correct.
    AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS *+,B-.+.
    &he under1igned doe1 here>- a..irm that the 0receding document doe1 not contain the 1ocial
    1ecurit- num>er o. an- 0er1on.

    Dated: (e>ruar- *# 2+12
    JJ Zach CoughlinTTTTTTTT
    Zach Coughlin# ,00ellant
    ,ttorne- .or /ro e ,00ellant denied i)th ,mendment "ight &o Coun1el
    PROOF OF SER/I)E
    /ur1uant to N"C/ 5D><# 2 certi.- that 2 1erved a co0- o. the .oregoing ,00ellant@1 40ening
    Brie. u0on the .ollo?ing 0art- >- electronicall- .iling on (e>ruar- 3
    rd
    # 2+12 and there.ore 1erving
    u0on regi1tered e.iler:
    /amela "o>ert1# E1C.
    5ohn Uadlic# E1C.
    /4 Bo) 19++
    "eno# N$ %95+5
    ,ttorne- .or Cit- o. "eno
    Date thi1 (e>ruar- *
    rd
    # 2+12:
    JJ Zach Coughlin
    Zach Coughlin# ,00ellant
    - 8 -
    Appellant Opening Brie
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    - 9 -
    Appellant Opening Brie

    Potrebbero piacerti anche