May 13, 2025, Oral Arguments
Stewart (Tommy) vs. Nev. BD. Of Parole Comm’r (Criminal)
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A
Allen (Michael) vs. State
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A
Kieren vs. State of Nevada
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Panel A
Stewart (Tommy) vs. Nev. BD. Of Parole Comm’r (Criminal)
Docket No. 89355
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A
Tommy Stewart applied for parole, but was denied. The Board scheduled a rehearing for January 24, 2025, where Stewart sought reconsideration of the denial due to an error in the Board’s risk assessment. Once this error was confirmed by the Board’s Executive Secretary, a new hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2025. At that hearing the Board denied Stewart parole and scheduled a rehearing for November 1, 2025. Stewart petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the Board violated due process by scheduling the rehearing roughly nine months after the original hearing date. Stewart asserts that he was essentially punished for requesting reconsideration and that his rehearing would have been earlier if he had not.
Allen (Michael) vs. State
Docket No. 88252
Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under fourteen years of age and one count of lewdness with a minor under fourteen years of age. At trial, appellant’s defense strategy was to create reasonable doubt by presenting an alternate suspect. Appellant sought to present evidence of the alternate suspect’s juvenile record to aid in this strategy, but the district court refused to admit the evidence. On appeal, appellant argues that denying admission of the juvenile records prevented him from presenting the defense theory of the case.
Kieren vs. State of Nevada
Docket No. 85442
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Panel A
Appellant is an inmate housed by NDOC. While incarcerated, he attempted to have some of his documents notarized for probate purposes in California but was denied because he did not have an identification with a valid signature. Appellant filed a writ petition to remedy the issue, which was denied. This court then reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Appellant still did not receive notary services. After being transferred to a different correctional facility, Appellant again requested notary services and was again denied. Appellant filed the instant writ petition in district court. NDOC filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the district court. Appellant filed a motion to rehear the order to dismiss, which the district court denied. This appeal followed .