Jack (Hanley) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 18, 2015
• Docket: 67952
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

unambiguous). Jack implicitly concedes that the statute is unambiguous but argues that it would lead to an absurd result because the purpose of the statute is to protect the public via supervision. Jack does not explain how his desired interpretation of NRS 213.1243(8) to limit the State to pursue only one charge for all violations of a single lifetime supervision agreement achieves the legislative purpose any more than following the plain language of the statute. Jack also looks to this court's statement in Palmer v. State that violators "risk conviction of an additional felony and the imposition of an additional prison term." 118 Nev. 823, 830, 59 P.3d 1192, 1196 (2002) (emphasis added). Jack takes Palmer's language out of context. That case did not hold that the State could obtain only a single conviction for multiple violations of a lifetime supervision agreement, but rather contrasted the consequences of violating lifetime supervision conditions with those of violating parole conditions, which do not necessarily result in a new conviction or term of imprisonment. Second, Jack argues that the district court erred in denying a proposed defense instruction that financial inability is a defense to the charge that was based on his failure to pay fees. Jack was entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of defense so long as there was some evidence to support the theory. See Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258, 1262, 147 P.3d 1101, 1104 (2006). However, Jack has failed to provide this court with the trial transcripts to demonstrate what his theory of defense was at trial or what evidence supported it. See NRAP 10(b)(1) (providing that appendices must include "the portions of the trial court record to be used on appeal, including all transcripts necessary to the Supreme Court's review"); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant."). We

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ma(01944 therefore conclude that Jack has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in denying his proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

Picker

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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A oe.