Pope (Danule) v. State
This text of Pope (Danule) v. State (Pope (Danule) 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.
Opinion
judgment of conviction. See Buffington v. State, 110 Nev. 124, 126, 868
P.2d 643, 644 (1994).
During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel specifically
requested that "probation begin when Mr. Pope is paroled." And the
district court unambiguously ordered the sentence to run consecutively to
Pope's sentence in his other case. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that the amended judgment of conviction contained a clerical error
because it did not reflect that the sentence was ordered to run
consecutively. When the district court entered the second amended
judgment of conviction to include this requirement, it simply corrected the
clerical error. The district court had jurisdiction to enter the second
amended judgment of conviction because a district court may correct a
clerical error arising from an oversight or omission at any time. NRS
176.565. Accordingly we conclude Pope's contention lacks merit.
Pope also contends that the district court erred by giving a
jury instruction defining when a person is under the influence of a
controlled substance. An appeal from an amended judgment of conviction
may only challenge the amended judgment of conviction to the extent that
it differs from the original judgment of conviction. Cf. Sullivan v. State,
120 Nev. 537, 540-42, 96 P.3d 761, 763-65 (2004) (entry of an amended
judgment of conviction can only provide good cause to file an untimely
post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the claims raised
relate to the amendment). To the extent this appeal can be construed as
an appeal from the original judgment of conviction, the notice of appeal
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
MIZ.11111111 AT—MM . CrinfaWatITWA:,. was not timely filed. See NRAP 4(b)(1)(A). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994) ("[A]n untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.
4) Hrdesty
...„
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge State Public Defender/Ely State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A
7ff21" ru-. fsb
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pope (Danule) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-danule-v-state-nev-2013.