Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedApril 14, 2016

Docket69970

StatusUnpublished

This text of Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (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

Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALBERTO JULIO GUILLEN, No. 69970 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE FILED SCOTT N. FREEMAN, DISTRICT APR 1 4 2016 JUDGE, TRACE K. LINDEMAN Respondents, CLER.W SUPREME COURT

and BY DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of certiorari challenges the district court's order affirming petitioner Alberto Guillen's misdemeanor convictions for assault, battery, and making a threatening telephone call. Guillen contends that NRS 51.035 is unconstitutional insofar as it permits a conviction solely on the basis of a victim's prior inconsistent statements without other corroborating evidence. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, lying within the discretion of this court. Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). The writ may be granted to review the constitutionality of a statute in appealing a decision of the justice court where an appellant was prosecuted under that statute and the district court has ruled on the constitutionality of that statute. NRS 34.020(3). Guillen, however, has not challenged the constitutionality of the offense statutes under which he was prosecuted, but rather challenges the constitutionality of the evidence admitted against him. See Glass v. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A i - 117 3 4, Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 87 Nev. 321, 324, 486 P.2d 1180, 1182(1971) ("Certiorari, although available to test the constitutionality of a statute, is not available to decide a question of the admissibility of evidence."). As this claim does not fall within the narrow scope of NRS 34.020, we decline to exercise our discretion to issue a writ of certiorari. Having considered Guillen's petition and concluded that extraordinary relief is not warranted, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947T

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALBERTO JULIO GUILLEN, No. 69970 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE FILED SCOTT N. FREEMAN, DISTRICT APR 1 4 2016 JUDGE, TRACE K. LINDEMAN Respondents, CLER.W SUPREME COURT

and BY DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of certiorari challenges the district court's order affirming petitioner Alberto Guillen's misdemeanor convictions for assault, battery, and making a threatening telephone call. Guillen contends that NRS 51.035 is unconstitutional insofar as it permits a conviction solely on the basis of a victim's prior inconsistent statements without other corroborating evidence. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, lying within the discretion of this court. Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). The writ may be granted to review the constitutionality of a statute in appealing a decision of the justice court where an appellant was prosecuted under that statute and the district court has ruled on the constitutionality of that statute. NRS 34.020(3). Guillen, however, has not challenged the constitutionality of the offense statutes under which he was prosecuted, but rather challenges the constitutionality of the evidence admitted against him. See Glass v. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A i - 117 3 4, Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 87 Nev. 321, 324, 486 P.2d 1180, 1182(1971) ("Certiorari, although available to test the constitutionality of a statute, is not available to decide a question of the admissibility of evidence."). As this claim does not fall within the narrow scope of NRS 34.020, we decline to exercise our discretion to issue a writ of certiorari. Having considered Guillen's petition and concluded that extraordinary relief is not warranted, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947T

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Guillen (Alberto) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillen-alberto-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

J. Douglas

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack