Kershaw v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Kershaw v. State

564 P.2d 607, 93 Nev. 290, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 540

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1977

DocketNo. 9203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 564 P.2d 607 (Kershaw 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

Kershaw v. State, 564 P.2d 607, 93 Nev. 290, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 540 (Neb. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The prosecuting attorney agreed to forego filing charges of felony narcotic offenses, alleged to have been committed by Michael Kershaw in the Nevada State Prison. In exchange for this agreement, Kershaw entered a solemn plea of guilty to a charge of having escaped from prison, a violation of NRS 212.090.¹ He was sentenced to a five year term, to run consecutively with sentences previously imposed for felony convictions in Arizona and in Ohio.

Kershaw, obviously disenchanted because the sentence was “consecutive” rather than “concurrent,” has appealed claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because the sentencing judge relied on (1) an inaccurate pre-sentence report; and, (2) records of the juvenile court which showed that Kershaw, as a juvenile, had committed a number of “felony” offenses.

When sentence was imposed, the trial judge declined to consider portions of the pre-sentence report which Kershaw then [292]*292challenged. We decline to consider challenges to other portions of the report, which are now advanced for the first time. Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 544 P.2d 424 (1975). Cf. Thomas v. State, 88 Nev. 382, 498 P.2d 1314 (1972). Furthermore, at sentencing, the district judge stated: “I am not basing my decision on the juvenile record.” Thus, in the context presented, we consider Kershaw’s claims of error as being patently frivolous. Burks v. State, 92 Nev. 670, 557 P.2d 711 (1976). Cf. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973).

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The prosecuting attorney agreed to forego filing charges of felony narcotic offenses, alleged to have been committed by Michael Kershaw in the Nevada State Prison. In exchange for this agreement, Kershaw entered a solemn plea of guilty to a charge of having escaped from prison, a violation of NRS 212.090.¹ He was sentenced to a five year term, to run consecutively with sentences previously imposed for felony convictions in Arizona and in Ohio.

Kershaw, obviously disenchanted because the sentence was “consecutive” rather than “concurrent,” has appealed claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because the sentencing judge relied on (1) an inaccurate pre-sentence report; and, (2) records of the juvenile court which showed that Kershaw, as a juvenile, had committed a number of “felony” offenses.

When sentence was imposed, the trial judge declined to consider portions of the pre-sentence report which Kershaw then [292]*292challenged. We decline to consider challenges to other portions of the report, which are now advanced for the first time. Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 544 P.2d 424 (1975). Cf. Thomas v. State, 88 Nev. 382, 498 P.2d 1314 (1972). Furthermore, at sentencing, the district judge stated: “I am not basing my decision on the juvenile record.” Thus, in the context presented, we consider Kershaw’s claims of error as being patently frivolous. Burks v. State, 92 Nev. 670, 557 P.2d 711 (1976). Cf. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 P.2d 607, 93 Nev. 290, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kershaw-v-state-nev-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack