Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 1 12 0204 RMC Procedure Change Indicating Fax Filings Need Be Sent To 3824 Came After Coughlini's 6 28 12 Fax Notice of Appeal in 26405 CR12-1262

    Uploaded by

    DoTheMacaReno
    2 views1 page
    F I L E D Electronically 03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2829786 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE *** ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN, Appellant, Case No.: CRll-2064 vs. Dept. No.: 10 CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation, Respondent. I ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed by Respondent CITY OF RENO (hereafter "Respondent") on January 19, 2012. Following, on January 30, 2012, Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Thereafter, on February 6, 2012, Respondent filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Contemporaneously therewith, Respondent filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration. This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court. In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts a single argument. Namely, Respondent argues that Appellant's appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Pursuant to NRS 189.010, an appellant has ten days following the entry of a judgment of conviction to file a notice of appeal. Should an appeal come outside of that -1- time period, the matter is untimely and may be dismissed by the Court. As applied to the instant case, Respondent reasons that because Appellant filed his appeal more than ten calendar days after the entry of judgment, Appellant's appeal is untimely. Respondent's approach ignores Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which governs the computation of time. That rule provides that "[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation." NRCP 6(a). In other words, NRS 189.010's ten day rule does not refer to calendar days, but is calculated based on the passage of judicial days. Thus, Appellant had until December 14, 2011 to file his Notice of Appeal. Because Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011, his appeal was timely and this Court will deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERBEY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED. DATED this K day of March, 2012. /. 7 ~ \/~~~ STEVEN P. E[LIOTT District Judge 1 In his Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Appellant raises a great variety of arguments. While the majority of these arguments are irrelevant, one bears mentioning. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Municipal Court Judge extended the statutory deadline within which Appellant was required to file his Appeal. Respondent counters that Appellant has not provided evidence of such an extension, and in any event, a Municipal Court Judge lacks the authority to alter the statutory deadlines for filing an appeal. In light of this Court's conclusion that Appellant's appeal was timely even without an extenSion, this Court finds it unnecessary to address whether such an extension was granted or proper. -2- CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for cm OF RENO DATED this 15" day of March, M .~Root v. City of Las Vegas, 84 Nev 258,439 PDocument Code: Zach Coughlin,Esq. Nevada Bar No: 9473 1422 E. 9th St., #2 tel: 775 229 6737 fax: 949 667 7402 Reno, NV 89512 Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA STATE OF NEVADA; Plaintiff, vs. ZACHARY COUGHLIN; Defenda

    Original Title

    7 1 12 0204 RMC Procedure Change Indicating Fax Filings Need Be Sent to 3824 Came After Coughlini's 6 28 12 Fax Notice of Appeal in 26405 CR12-1262

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    F I L E D Electronically 03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2829786 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE *** ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN, Appellant, Case No.: CRll-2064 vs. Dept. No.: 10 CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation, Respondent. I ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed by Respondent CITY OF RENO (hereafter "Respondent") on January 19, 2012. Following, on January 30, 2012, Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Thereafter, on February 6, 2012, Respondent filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Contemporaneously therewith, Respondent filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration. This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court. In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts a single argument. Namely, Respondent argues that Appellant's appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Pursuant to NRS 189.010, an appellant has ten days following the entry of a judgment of conviction to file a notice of appeal. Should an appeal come outside of that -1- time period, the matter is untimely and may be dismissed by the Court. As applied to the instant case, Respondent reasons that because Appellant filed his appeal more than ten calendar days after the entry of judgment, Appellant's appeal is untimely. Respondent's approach ignores Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which governs the computation of time. That rule provides that "[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation." NRCP 6(a). In other words, NRS 189.010's ten day rule does not refer to calendar days, but is calculated based on the passage of judicial days. Thus, Appellant had until December 14, 2011 to file his Notice of Appeal. Because Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011, his appeal was timely and this Court will deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERBEY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED. DATED this K day of March, 2012. /. 7 ~ \/~~~ STEVEN P. E[LIOTT District Judge 1 In his Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Appellant raises a great variety of arguments. While the majority of these arguments are irrelevant, one bears mentioning. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Municipal Court Judge extended the statutory deadline within which Appellant was required to file his Appeal. Respondent counters that Appellant has not provided evidence of such an extension, and in any event, a Municipal Court Judge lacks the authority to alter the statutory deadlines for filing an appeal. In light of this Court's conclusion that Appellant's appeal was timely even without an extenSion, this Court finds it unnecessary to address whether such an extension was granted or proper. -2- CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for cm OF RENO DATED this 15" day of March, M .~Root v. City of Las Vegas, 84 Nev 258,439 PDocument Code: Zach Coughlin,Esq. Nevada Bar No: 9473 1422 E. 9th St., #2 tel: 775 229 6737 fax: 949 667 7402 Reno, NV 89512 Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA STATE OF NEVADA; Plaintiff, vs. ZACHARY COUGHLIN; Defenda

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    2 views1 page

    7 1 12 0204 RMC Procedure Change Indicating Fax Filings Need Be Sent To 3824 Came After Coughlini's 6 28 12 Fax Notice of Appeal in 26405 CR12-1262

    Uploaded by

    DoTheMacaReno
    F I L E D Electronically 03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM Joey Orduna Hastings Clerk of the Court Transaction # 2829786 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE *** ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN, Appellant, Case No.: CRll-2064 vs. Dept. No.: 10 CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation, Respondent. I ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed by Respondent CITY OF RENO (hereafter "Respondent") on January 19, 2012. Following, on January 30, 2012, Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Thereafter, on February 6, 2012, Respondent filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. Contemporaneously therewith, Respondent filed a Request for Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration. This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation of RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court. In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts a single argument. Namely, Respondent argues that Appellant's appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Pursuant to NRS 189.010, an appellant has ten days following the entry of a judgment of conviction to file a notice of appeal. Should an appeal come outside of that -1- time period, the matter is untimely and may be dismissed by the Court. As applied to the instant case, Respondent reasons that because Appellant filed his appeal more than ten calendar days after the entry of judgment, Appellant's appeal is untimely. Respondent's approach ignores Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which governs the computation of time. That rule provides that "[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the computation." NRCP 6(a). In other words, NRS 189.010's ten day rule does not refer to calendar days, but is calculated based on the passage of judicial days. Thus, Appellant had until December 14, 2011 to file his Notice of Appeal. Because Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2011, his appeal was timely and this Court will deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERBEY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED. DATED this K day of March, 2012. /. 7 ~ \/~~~ STEVEN P. E[LIOTT District Judge 1 In his Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Appellant raises a great variety of arguments. While the majority of these arguments are irrelevant, one bears mentioning. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Municipal Court Judge extended the statutory deadline within which Appellant was required to file his Appeal. Respondent counters that Appellant has not provided evidence of such an extension, and in any event, a Municipal Court Judge lacks the authority to alter the statutory deadlines for filing an appeal. In light of this Court's conclusion that Appellant's appeal was timely even without an extenSion, this Court finds it unnecessary to address whether such an extension was granted or proper. -2- CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically: ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for cm OF RENO DATED this 15" day of March, M .~Root v. City of Las Vegas, 84 Nev 258,439 PDocument Code: Zach Coughlin,Esq. Nevada Bar No: 9473 1422 E. 9th St., #2 tel: 775 229 6737 fax: 949 667 7402 Reno, NV 89512 Co-counsel for Defendant Coughlin IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA STATE OF NEVADA; Plaintiff, vs. ZACHARY COUGHLIN; Defenda

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    7

    June 2012, Vol. 34, No. 6


    Reno Justice Court Bench Bar Meeting
    August 23, 4 p.m.
    Reno Justice Court is holding a Bench Bar meeting Tursday,
    August 23, 4:00 p.m. in the 2nd oor jury room at Reno Justice
    Court. Attorneys are invited to suggest items they would like
    included on the agenda by notifying Lori Townsend at 325-6505
    or ltownsend@washoecounty.us.
    Reno Municipal Court Procedure Change
    Pursuant to Reno Municipal Court Rule 5B, all motions /
    pleadings submitted via facsimile shall be directed to the Reno
    Municipal Court Clerks Oce facsimile at 775-334-3824. If
    you have any questions regarding this procedure, please contact
    Cassandra Jackson, Court Administrator at 775-334-2295.
    WCBA Fall Luncheons Feature Candidate
    Debates
    Mark your calendars now for noon on both September 12
    and October 10. Washoe County Bar is scheduling candidate
    debates: District Court, Dept. 9 at Second Judicial Court (Hon.
    Scott Freeman and former Washoe County District Attorney Cal
    Dunlap); Reno Justice Court Dept. 1 (Hon. Patricia Lynch and
    Reno lawyer Greg Shannon) and Dept. 6 (Pierre Hasche and
    Gemma Greene Waldron). Watch for details and reservations.


    PHOENIX TUCSON NOGALES DENVER LAS VEGAS RENO
    ATTORNEYS
    LAW THAT LEADS

    EXPANDS POWERFULLY IN NEVADA


    WITH NEARLY 200 TALENTED, EXPERIENCED ATTORNEYS NOW ON BOARD, Fennemore Craig Jones
    Vargas is positioned as a legal powerhouse throughout the Mountain West where clients come rst with lawyers who know their business. Fennemore
    Craig welcomes 23 attorneys from the distinguished Jones Vargas rm to the Las Vegas ofce and to the new Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas ofce
    in Reno. That totals 36 familiar faces to serve clients with proven talent, deep roots and a broad spectrum of legal services. For more information call
    Ann Morgan, Managing Partner Reno Ofce, at 775.786.5000 or visit FENNEMORECRAI G.COM.
    FENNEMORE CRAIG JONES VARGAS OFFICES GROW TO 36 ATTORNEYS

    You might also like