Friday, July 19, 2019 - Las Vegas - J. Hardesty, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver
Valentine (Keandre) vs. State
Docket Number: 74468
Las Vegas - 9:30 a.m. - Southern Panel
The jury heard evidence that Keandre Valentine committed a series of armed robberies, which occurred between May 26 and May 28, 2016 in Las Vegas. The jury convicted Valentine of 7 counts of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, 1 count of attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, 3 counts of burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon; 1 count of possession of a document or personal identifying information; and 2 counts of possession of credit or debit card without the cardholder’s consent.
ISSUES:
Valentine raises several issues on appeal including whether: (1) the district court committed a structural error regarding appellant’s venire challenge premised on a violation of his right to a jury pool comprised of a fair-cross section of the community; (2) appellant was prejudiced, and his rights under the Due Process Clause and Confrontation Clause were violated, by the admission of transcripts of grand jury witness testimony; (3) Valentine’s constitutional right to present a defense was violated by the district court’s refusal to admit all the photographs of the person appellant argued he was mistaken for; (4) the district court erred in denying a mistrial based upon the State’s multiple discovery violations of: (a) failing to provide appellant with all of his jail calls; (b) failing to disclose a missing show-up form.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Banks (James) vs. State
Docket Number: 75106
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Southern Panel
Appellant James Banks was convicted, pursuant to a jury verdict, of attempted murder and battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. Banks represented himself at trial, with the assistance of standby counsel.
ISSUES:
On appeal, he raises several challenges to the district court’s settling of jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, his waiver of counsel, standby counsel’s interference with his right to represent himself, instances of alleged judicial misconduct, and the court’s actions, which he argues, undermined his presumption of innocence before the jury.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
State vs. Inzunza (Rigoberto)
Docket Number: 75662
Las Vegas - 11:00 a.m. - Southern Panel
This is an appeal from a district court order granting respondent Rigoberto Inzunza’s pretrial motion to dismiss. Inzunza argued that the State’s two-and-a-half-year delay between filing the criminal complaint and his arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial under Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). The district court agreed, concluding that: the delay was presumptively prejudicial, the State was solely responsible for the delay, Inzunza was not required to assert his right to a speedy trial, and the State failed to submit evidence to rebut the presumption.
ISSUES:
The State argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case because it misapplied the Doggett factors.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Gathrite (Deandre) vs. Dist. CT. (State)
Docket Number: 77529
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Southern Panel
This appeal challenges an indictment against petitioner Deandre Gathrite for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Before the district court, Gathrite responded to his indictment with a petition for habeas corpus and a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct based on the State’s presentation of previously suppressed evidence. The district court sua sponte held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of suppression, holding it was not improper of the State to present the suppressed evidence to the grand jury because the justice court erred.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Gathrite requests this court consider whether: (1) the State may properly proceed to the grand jury to seek an indictment using evidence a justice court ordered suppressed; (2) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct warranting dismissal of the indictment; (3) the district court improperly conducted a sua sponte evidentiary hearing as to the suppression of evidence; (4) petitioner’s statements to police and the recovered firearm were properly suppressed by the justice court.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Chersus Holdings, LLC vs. Bank of New York Mellon
Docket Number: 74546
Las Vegas - 12:00 p.m. - Southern Panel
This is an appeal from a final judgment in an action to quiet title. After dismissal of an earlier complaint alleging the same facts and requesting the same relief against respondent, appellant filed a second complaint. When respondent moved the district court to dismiss the second complaint on preclusion grounds, appellant responded that the district court never entered a final judgment in the first case. Ultimately, the district court dismissed appellant’s second complaint with prejudice, finding that preclusion barred it.
ISSUES:
The main issue on appeal is whether claim or issue preclusion bars appellant’s second complaint.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do