Foster, III (Harold) v. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 2017
Docket72608
StatusUnpublished

This text of Foster, III (Harold) v. State (Foster, III (Harold) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foster, III (Harold) v. State, (Neb. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HAROLD CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, III, No. 72608 Appellant, vs. ■IC-3r THE STATE OF NEVADA, 15.1

Respondent. JUN 1 5 2017

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order revoking probation. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Janet J. Berry, Judge. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation where he had been on probation for less than a month and other options were available.' We disagree. The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to revoke a defendant's probation, and we therefore will not disturb its decision absent a clear showing of abuse. Lewis, 90 Nev. at 438, 529 P.2d at 797. Here, there is no clear showing of an abuse of discretion—that the district court failed to exercise its discretion or that its decision exceeds the bounds of reason or rests on an error of law or fact. Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 120, 17

'Appellant does not appear to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the probation violations. Regardless, it appears that the evidence and facts were sufficient to "reasonably satisfy the judge" that appellant's conduct was not "as good as required by the conditions of probation," which is all that is required. Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 438, 529 P.2d 796, 797 (1974).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A c4Dr7 P.3d 998, 1000 (2001) ("An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason."); State v. Hambright, 388 P.3d 613, 619 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017) ("A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact."); State v. Monad, 122 P.3d 571, 575 (Utah 2005) ("A failure to exercise discretion is generally encompassed within the meaning of abuse of discretion."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

Parraguirrer j.

jealsc;...0 Stiglich

cc: Second Judicial District Court, Department 1 Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewis v. State
529 P.2d 796 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1974)
State v. Montiel
2005 UT 48 (Utah Supreme Court, 2005)
Jackson v. State
17 P.3d 998 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2001)
State v. Hambright
388 P.3d 613 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Foster, III (Harold) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-iii-harold-v-state-nev-2017.