Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hugo Sanchez pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses involving two juvenile victims. Eight years later, he filed a petition to establish factual innocence under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 34.900-.990. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice, stating that Sanchez did not meet the pleading requirements under NRS 34.960.Previously, Sanchez had filed a direct appeal, which was dismissed after he voluntarily withdrew it. He later filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence regarding some charges. The State argued that such a claim should be raised in a petition to establish factual innocence. The district court denied the State's motion to dismiss and allowed Sanchez to amend his petition. Sanchez then filed an amended petition to establish factual innocence, supported by a declaration from one of the victims recanting her previous statements. The district court initially set a hearing but later limited it to the pleading requirements under the factual-innocence statutes and subsequently dismissed the petition without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case to determine if an order dismissing a petition to establish factual innocence without prejudice is appealable. The court concluded that such an order is not appealable under NRS 34.970(9) or any other statute or rule cited by Sanchez. The court noted that the factual-innocence statutes do not provide for an appeal from an order dismissing a petition without prejudice and that such an order does not constitute a final judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "SANCHEZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

John Paul Alvarez was initially charged with misdemeanor possession of stolen property in Reno Municipal Court, to which he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in county jail. Subsequently, he was charged with residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny in the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, based on the same incident. The primary issue on appeal was whether Alvarez's prosecution and conviction for grand larceny violated double jeopardy principles, given his prior guilty plea to possession of stolen property.In the lower court, Alvarez filed a motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the State was barred from prosecuting him for grand larceny because it involved the same act as the possession-of-stolen-property offense. The district court denied the motion, concluding that under the Blockburger test, each offense required proof of a fact not required by the other. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Alvarez guilty of residential burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and grand larceny.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that a defendant cannot be convicted of both a theft crime and possessing or receiving the property stolen in the commission of the same theft crime. The court reaffirmed that theft crimes and possession of stolen property are mutually exclusive, alternative offenses. Consequently, the district court erred in denying Alvarez's motion to dismiss the grand larceny charge, as his prior conviction for possession of stolen property precluded the grand larceny conviction. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed Alvarez's grand larceny conviction but affirmed the other convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "ALVAREZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law

The Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association and the Las Vegas Peace Officers Association negotiated additional holidays with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas. These holidays included Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) refused to collect increased retirement contributions on the holiday pay for these additional holidays, arguing that they were not included in Nevada's statutory list of holidays.The Associations filed a declaratory relief action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, seeking to compel PERS to collect the appropriate contributions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Associations, directing PERS to collect the contributions for the additional holiday pay.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that PERS is required to collect additional retirement contributions for the increased wages earned on the negotiated holidays. The court concluded that the plain text of NRS 288.150(2)(d) supports the Associations' authority to negotiate holidays and that PERS must comply with these agreements. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following a presidential declaration and that PERS must collect contributions for this holiday retroactively to 2022. Additionally, the court found that the Associations have the statutory power to negotiate holiday pay for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and PERS is obligated to collect contributions for these holidays as well.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, requiring PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for the additional holiday pay as negotiated by the Associations. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

Sky Moore rented a car from Budget Car and Truck Rental of Las Vegas, owned by Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. Sky named Daniel Moore as an additional driver, who later rear-ended Alelign Woldeyohannes while intoxicated. Alelign sued Daniel for negligence and Malco for negligent entrustment. Daniel did not respond, resulting in a default judgment against him. The case proceeded to arbitration, where Alelign was awarded $32,680.26. Malco requested a trial de novo, leading to a short trial where the judge entered a default judgment against Daniel for $37,886.82.Alelign moved to apply the default judgment against Malco under NRS 482.305(1), which holds short-term lessors liable for damages if they fail to provide minimum insurance coverage. Malco opposed, arguing that NRS 482.305 is preempted by the Graves Amendment, which prohibits states from holding vehicle lessors vicariously liable without negligence or wrongdoing. The short trial judge granted Alelign’s motion, and the district court affirmed, concluding that NRS 482.305 is a financial responsibility law preserved by the Graves Amendment’s savings clause.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that NRS 482.305 is not preempted by the Graves Amendment because it is a financial responsibility law preserved by the savings clause under 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b). The court emphasized that NRS 482.305 imposes a legal requirement for lessors to provide minimum coverage, rather than a mere financial inducement, and does not impose strict vicarious liability on lessors. View "Malco Enterprises of Nevada, Inc. vs. Woldeyohannes" on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed two minors from their parents' care due to domestic violence and placed them with their paternal aunt. DFS provided rental assistance to the aunt for two months until she became a licensed foster parent and began receiving foster care subsidies. The children's attorney requested additional rental assistance for the aunt, which DFS declined. During a hearing on a motion to terminate parental rights, the district court ordered DFS to pay an additional $1,000 towards the aunt's rent. DFS sought reconsideration, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada initially ordered DFS to pay the rental assistance, citing NRS 432B.550(1) as the basis for its authority. DFS argued that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue such an order and petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to order DFS to pay rental assistance. The court found that NRS 432B.550(1) and NRS 432B.590(7) did not empower the district court to direct DFS to make such payments. The court emphasized that DFS has broad statutory authority to manage its budget without interference from the court. Consequently, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing the order. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order requiring DFS to pay rental assistance to the foster parent. View "In re N.R.R. and N.I.R." on Justia Law

Paul Martinez and Jennifer Martinez divorced in California in 2015, with Jennifer receiving primary physical custody of their child, L.M., due to Paul's health issues. Paul and Jennifer shared joint legal custody. After Jennifer moved to Nevada with L.M., Paul requested a custody evaluation, which resulted in maintaining the existing custody arrangement but with Paul entitled to visitation one weekend per month. The parties were to split transportation costs equally. In 2020, the custody matter was transferred to Nevada.The Nevada district court denied Paul's motion for primary physical custody and Jennifer's countermotion for supervised visitation, instead increasing Paul's visitation. The court ordered Jennifer to bear all transportation costs for L.M.'s visits to Paul, citing her relocation. Jennifer's motion to alter this determination was denied, leading her to appeal. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, and Jennifer petitioned for review by the Nevada Supreme Court.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that transportation costs must be considered as part of the overall child support determination under NAC 425.150. The court found that the district court erred by imposing all transportation costs on Jennifer without considering the parties' financial situations or the established child support obligations. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order imposing transportation costs on Jennifer and remanded the matter for further proceedings to apply the NAC 425.150 framework. The court affirmed the district court's decision to modify visitation, finding no abuse of discretion and no violation of Jennifer's due process rights. View "Martinez v. Martinez" on Justia Law

David Bourne was diagnosed with chronic anxiety, major depressive disorder, and chronic low back pain by Dr. Zidrieck Valdes in 2015. Valdes prescribed Klonopin and an opioid. In 2019, Valdes informed Bourne of new CDC guidelines against concurrent use of these medications and switched Bourne to Buspar. Bourne experienced withdrawal symptoms and refused a referral to an in-patient drug treatment facility. Despite reporting stress and receiving a half-dose emergency prescription of Klonopin, Bourne showed no signs of withdrawal or suicidal ideation in subsequent visits. In November 2019, Bourne died by suicide, leaving a note blaming the medication changes.Bourne's wife and child sued Valdes for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in not tapering off Klonopin. Their expert, Dr. Donald A. Misch, supported this claim. Valdes moved for summary judgment, arguing that suicide is a superseding cause that precludes liability. The district court agreed, citing the "suicide rule" and granted summary judgment, stating Valdes had no control over Bourne.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a patient's suicide does not automatically preclude liability for medical malpractice. The court emphasized that established medical malpractice principles should apply, and whether a medical provider's negligence led to a patient's suicide is a factual question for the jury. The court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the "suicide rule" and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bourne v. Valdes" on Justia Law

Mable Hrynchuk named Bryan Kenton as the sole beneficiary of her estate, which included her residential property. After her death, the homeowner’s association foreclosed on the property and sold it to Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3580 Lost Hills. Kenton, through his attorney-in-fact, Foreclosure Recovery Services, sought to redeem the property as a successor in interest. Saticoy Bay refused, asserting that Kenton was not the successor in interest and had no rights of redemption under Nevada law.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County granted summary judgment in favor of Foreclosure Recovery Services, holding that Kenton was the successor in interest and had the right to redeem the property. Saticoy Bay appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that a will beneficiary is immediately vested with a beneficial interest in devised property upon the testator’s death and is therefore the testator’s successor in interest for the purposes of NRS 116.31166. The court concluded that Kenton, as the sole beneficiary of Hrynchuk’s will, was her successor in interest and had the right to redeem the property. The court also determined that Foreclosure Recovery Services provided all necessary documentation to Saticoy Bay to establish its right to act on behalf of Kenton in redeeming the property. View "Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3580 Lost Hills v. Foreclosure Recovery Services, LLC" on Justia Law

On January 18, 1997, C.V. was sexually assaulted by a man holding a knife who approached her at a bus stop, walked her to a vacant lot, and assaulted her. The perpetrator then dumped out her purse and left. A sexual assault examination was conducted, but no suspect was identified at the time. Over 20 years later, Clifton Dawson's DNA matched the DNA from the examination kit. Dawson was charged with one count of sexual assault and found guilty in 2022 after a six-day jury trial. At sentencing, the State sought an enhancement based on Dawson's habitual criminal status.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County applied the habitual criminal statute in effect at the time of the offense, which required three prior felony convictions for a large habitual criminal adjudication. The court found three qualifying convictions and sentenced Dawson to life in prison without the possibility of parole.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. Dawson argued that the enhancement should be based on the statute in effect at the time of sentencing, not the time of the offense. The court disagreed, holding that the statute in effect at the time of the offense applies unless the legislature clearly states otherwise. The court found that the 1995 version of the habitual criminal statute was correctly applied.However, the court concluded that the district court erred in adjudicating Dawson as a habitual criminal because the State did not prove the requisite number of prior convictions. Only two of the prior convictions predated the charged offense. The court vacated Dawson's sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, emphasizing that the State must prove that prior convictions predate the charged offense for habitual criminal adjudication. View "DAWSON VS. STATE" on Justia Law

In 2020, state and federal law enforcement conducted a reverse sting operation in Reno, targeting individuals seeking commercial sex with minors. Jesus Alberto Martinez, Jr. was arrested after he responded to an online advertisement and engaged in text conversations with an undercover officer posing as a 17-year-old sex worker. Martinez was charged with attempted abuse or neglect of a child involving sexual exploitation and soliciting a child for prostitution. He was convicted on both charges following a jury trial.Martinez appealed, arguing that the government's conduct was outrageous and violated due process, and that the jury instructions on entrapment were improper. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, and that his rights were violated by the district court's denial of his motion to compel the identity of the person depicted in the online advertisement.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court clarified the law on entrapment, emphasizing the importance of predisposition over initial contact. It adopted a six-factor test from United States v. Black to evaluate whether the government's conduct was outrageous. The court concluded that the government's conduct did not violate due process and that the jury instructions on entrapment, while containing an error regarding initial contact, did not warrant reversal. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the charges and determined that the district court did not err in denying Martinez's motion to compel the identity of the person in the advertisement. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "MARTINEZ VS. STATE" on Justia Law