Mendoza (Andres) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Mendoza (Andres) v. State

DecidedApril 9, 2013

Docket61545

StatusUnpublished

This text of Mendoza (Andres) v. State (Mendoza (Andres) 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

Mendoza (Andres) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in NRS chapter 34. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2006). Even assuming that appellant's use of the wrong vehicle could be overlooked, appellant's claim for additional presentence credit lacked merit because the time spent incarcerated after the sentencing hearing but before entry of the judgment of conviction is already credited as flat time against the sentence as the prison begins to calculate a sentence from the sentencing date. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

L°71 J. Hardesty

P e..4.0k Parraguirre J.

J.

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Andres Hernandez Mendoza Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

- -• .7 - I,7-7• 7; 11

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

compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in NRS chapter 34. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2006). Even assuming that appellant's use of the wrong vehicle could be overlooked, appellant's claim for additional presentence credit lacked merit because the time spent incarcerated after the sentencing hearing but before entry of the judgment of conviction is already credited as flat time against the sentence as the prison begins to calculate a sentence from the sentencing date. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.