Bowers (Christopher) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 9, 2013
• Docket: 61104
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

and/or text messages originated in Washoe County or Nevada. Bowers waived his ability to challenge the venue by pleading guilty. See id. Even assuming, without deciding, that proof of the situs of the crime implicates the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and is thus not subject to waiver by entry of the guilty plea, compare e.g., Rothchild v. State, 558 So. 2d 981, 984 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (State must prove that felony was committed in the state to establish subject matter jurisdiction), with State v. Adams, 958 A.2d 295, 300 n.4 (Md. 2008) (whether an offense was committed within the state's boundaries is a question of territorial jurisdiction), overruled on other grounds by Unger v. State, 48 A.3d 242, 258 (Md. 2012), and State v. Crocker, 621 S.E.2d 890, 894-95 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005) (appellant's claim that court lacked jurisdiction due to State's failure to allege that the offense occurred in the county was challenge to personal jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction); see generally Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 812, 59 P.3d 463, 467 (2002) (subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to waiver); 4 Wayne R. LaFaye, et al., Crim. Proc. § 16.4(d) (3d ed. 2012) (lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of a charging document is not waivable); see also Estrada v. State, 148 S.W.3d 506, 508-09 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting appellant's claim that court lacked jurisdiction because State did not prove that the offense occurred within the state where appellant pleaded guilty and admitted committing offense in state), Bowers offers no cogent argument or citation to authority in support of his contention that jurisdiction is contingent upon a showing that the threatening conduct originated in Washoe County or Nevada. See NRS 171.015 (defendant is liable for punishment in Nevada where offense commenced in another state is consummated in Nevada); Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178, 180 (1980)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

I Ali 4 ik? ("[F]inding of probable cause may be based on slight, even 'marginal' evidence."); Rossana v. State, 113 Nev. 375, 383, 934 P.2d 1045, 1050 (1997) (discussing elements of aggravated stalking); see also State v. Woolverton, 159 P.3d 985, 992-93 (Kan. 2007) (state had jurisdiction over criminal threat perceived in that state). Bowers therefore fails to demonstrate any error in this regard. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

' J. Hardesty

pc Parraguirre J.

cc: Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court Lee T. Hotchkin, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

I lalkCititT: MUM