Lawrence (Megan) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 17, 2019
• Docket: 76991
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MEGAN LAWRENCE, No. 76991 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. JUN 1 7 2019 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY-4PLITYtRi .\I t-46

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order revoking probation. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Simons, Judge. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation because it failed to consider appellant's argument for a dishonorable discharge. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 438, 529 P.2d 796, 797 (1974). There is no support in the record for appellant's assertion that the district court failed to consider appellant's argument for dishonorable discharge. More importantly, appellant's argument for dishonorable discharge was legally incorrect as NRS 176A.630 does not set forth dishonorable discharge as a possible district court action for violation of a condition of probation. Dishonorable discharge is only available pursuant to former NRS 176A.8701- when a defendant has expired the probationary term. And contrary to appellant's argument, a term of

'This provision is now codified in NRS 176A.850(2).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A AIRPF> ìq -2(0050 probation has expired when the period for probation has been completed.2 See, e.g., NRS 176A.850(1)(a) (describing one of the conditions for honorable discharge of probation to be "[fulfillment] of the conditions of probation for the entire period thereof'). Revocation of probation is not the equivalent of expiring a term of probation. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pieku Pickering

Parraguirre

J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Lynne K. Simons, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

2We reject appellant's argument that the term "expire& is ambiguous in the context of former NRS 176A.870, and thus, review of the legislative history is unwarranted. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A