Monday, February 1, 2021-Carson City-Full Court
78152 GONZALES (MELVIN) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 78152
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - En Banc
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant’s postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Melvin Gonzales argues that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to find trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to argue in support of the plea agreement and failing to seek specific performance of the agreement; (2) failing to litigate a motion to suppress evidence that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) failing to sever the seven counts in the complaint into two cases; and (4) failing to advise him regarding a guilty plea to a lesser charge. Gonzales further contends that district court abused its discretion when it determined that Gonzales’s claim that his counsel failed to object to a purported breach of the plea bargain was outside the scope of NRS 34.810(1)(a). Finally he argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the State breached the plea agreement on direct appeal.
ISSUES:
The court of appeals affirmed the decision on appeal and this court vacated the court of appeal’s order and granted appellant’s petition for review.
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
80774 STATE VS. FARMER, JR. (RIGDELL)
Docket Number: 80774
Carson City - 2:00 P.M. - En Banc
This is a direct appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss concernings a dispute over a district court’s inherent power to dismiss a criminal case. On the first day of trial, the State informed the district court that its first witness—the victim—had not arrived and the State could not reach him. The district court recessed the proceedings to allow the State a chance to find another witness. After a 20-minute recess, the State informed the district court that its backup witnesses needed another 20 minutes to get ready to testify via audiovisual means. The court declined the State’s request for a recess and instructed the State to call another witness. The State informed the court they did not have another witness available, at which point the court asked the State if it wanted to rest. The State declined to rest and informed the court it was waiting for its witnesses. Respondent moved for the district court to dismiss the case on the basis that the State did not present any evidence or witnesses to support the charges. The district court granted the motion to dismiss under “its inherent powers” for the State’s failure to have witnesses available.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the district court has inherent power to dismiss the case absent explicit legal authority; (2) the district court abused its discretion by granting the motion to dismiss; and (3) the dismissal violated the State’s right to a fair trial.
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