Terrazas (Carlos) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Terrazas (Carlos) v. State

DecidedJanuary 5, 2016

Docket66343

StatusUnpublished

This text of Terrazas (Carlos) v. State (Terrazas (Carlos) 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

Terrazas (Carlos) v. State, (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

(1980). Due process requires, in part, that these revocations include a written statement of the evidence and reasoning upon which the district court relied. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). Transcribed oral findings ordinarily satisfy this requirement, so long as the oral findings make the basis of the revocation and the evidence relied upon sufficiently clear. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2001). "[S]pecific findings with reference to the evidence supporting charges are not constitutionally required where a defendant raises no objection to the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence, and the district court finds that the government sufficiently proved the charged conduct." Id. at 409. Here, appellant raised no objection to the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence at the revocation hearing; he merely disputed the outcome. Appellant expressly conceded all of the facts relevant to our inquiry and only argued that these stipulated facts did not constitute substantive violations of his probation. Contrary to appellant's contention, the record clearly establishes that appellant violated multiple conditions of his probation. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that the district court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A cat. abused its discretion by revoking his probation and entering an amended judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

Cherry

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15 Reza Athari & Associates PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3 (tip 1947A 47. 4e1/4.

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

(1980). Due process requires, in part, that these revocations include a written statement of the evidence and reasoning upon which the district court relied. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). Transcribed oral findings ordinarily satisfy this requirement, so long as the oral findings make the basis of the revocation and the evidence relied upon sufficiently clear. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 405-06 (9th Cir. 2001). "[S]pecific findings with reference to the evidence supporting charges are not constitutionally required where a defendant raises no objection to the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence, and the district court finds that the government sufficiently proved the charged conduct." Id. at 409. Here, appellant raised no objection to the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence at the revocation hearing; he merely disputed the outcome. Appellant expressly conceded all of the facts relevant to our inquiry and only argued that these stipulated facts did not constitute substantive violations of his probation. Contrary to appellant's contention, the record clearly establishes that appellant violated multiple conditions of his probation. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that the district court