Richards (John) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Richards (John) v. State

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket67488

StatusUnpublished

This text of Richards (John) v. State (Richards (John) 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

Richards (John) v. State, (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOHN RICHARDS, No. 67488 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. FEB 1 0 2016 TRACIE K. LNDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT ay DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary while in possession of a firearm, and robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge. Appellant John Richards claims that, because the jury found him not guilty of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery, he should not have been convicted of burglary while in possession of a firearm. He argues that pursuant to Brooks v. State, 124 Nev. 203, 180 P.3d 657 (2008), the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the State's burden of proving he had knowledge of' the possession of the firearm during the burglary. Richards acknowledges that Brooks involved the use of a deadly weapon and the deadly weapon enhancement statute, 124 Nev. at 206-10, 180 P.3d at 659-62; see also NRS 193.165, but states that "Nile same instructions regarding the necessity of the State to prove knowledge of the possession of a firearm in the [b]urglary should have been given to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(111) 1947A are94 14,-01-19)7 follow the test outlined in Brooks," without providing analysis or authority for this conclusion.' "It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court." Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). As Roberts has failed to provide cogent argument supporting his request for relief, we decline to consider this claim. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Carl E. G. Arnold Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Additionally, his argument that "Nile jury's finding(s) . . . are inconsistent results" is equally without analysis or authority.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOHN RICHARDS, No. 67488 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. FEB 1 0 2016 TRACIE K. LNDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT ay DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury trial, of conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary while in possession of a firearm, and robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge. Appellant John Richards claims that, because the jury found him not guilty of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery, he should not have been convicted of burglary while in possession of a firearm. He argues that pursuant to Brooks v. State, 124 Nev. 203, 180 P.3d 657 (2008), the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the State's burden of proving he had knowledge of' the possession of the firearm during the burglary. Richards acknowledges that Brooks involved the use of a deadly weapon and the deadly weapon enhancement statute, 124 Nev. at 206-10, 180 P.3d at 659-62; see also NRS 193.165, but states that "Nile same instructions regarding the necessity of the State to prove knowledge of the possession of a firearm in the [b]urglary should have been given to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(111) 1947A are94 14,-01-19)7 follow the test outlined in Brooks," without providing analysis or authority for this conclusion.' "It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court." Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). As Roberts has failed to provide cogent argument supporting his request for relief, we decline to consider this claim. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Carl E. G. Arnold Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Additionally, his argument that "Nile jury's finding(s) . . . are inconsistent results" is equally without analysis or authority.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richards (John) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-john-v-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack