Gonzalez (Melvin) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 65768
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Second, appellant claims that he should have been convicted of

category C felonies pursuant to NRS 200.575(3) instead of category B

felonies pursuant to NRS 200.575(2) because he committed his stalking

crimes by sending text messages. However, the record does not

demonstrate that appellant raised this claim below and he cannot show

plain error because there was no error: the guilty plea agreement and plea

canvass transcript plainly demonstrate that he pleaded guilty to three

counts of aggravated stalking. See Maestas, 128 Nev. at , 275 P.3d at

89 (reviewing unpreserved errors for plain error); see generally Webb v.

State, 91 Nev. 469, 470, 538 P.2d 164, 165 (1975) (the entry of a guilty plea

generally waives any right to appeal from events occurring prior to the

entry of the guilty plea).

Third, appellant claims that the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over his case because NRS 200.275 does not specify

"whether the situs of the crime is [the] county from which the threat is

sent, or that in which it is received" and the court's jurisdiction was not

established during the plea canvass. Even assuming, without deciding,

that proof of the situs of the crime implicates the district court's subject

matter jurisdiction and therefore is not subject to waiver by the entry of

the guilty plea, see Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 812, 59 P.3d 463, 467

(2002) (subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to waiver), the charging

document states that all three crimes occurred in Humboldt County,

appellant admitted to committing the crimes as set forth in the charging

document, and NRS 200.581 provides that "aggravated stalking shall be

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A . e deemed to have been committed where the conduct occurred or where the

person who was affected by the conduct was located at the time that the

conduct occurred." Accordingly, appellant cannot demonstrate error in

this regard.

Having concluded that appellant is not entitled to relief, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Pershing County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney Humboldt County Clerk

'The fast track response does not comply with the formatting requirements of NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have one-inch margins on all four sides and is not paginated. We caution respondent's counsel that failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C (n).

SUPREME COURT OP NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e97 9 '