Tucker v. State
This text of 562 P.2d 827 (Tucker 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
[227]*227OPINION
On July 21, 1976, Archie Tucker was found guilty by the district court, sitting without a jury, of the sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The evidence adduced at trial established that Tucker had flown to Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 15, 1975, and sold one ounce of heroin to an undercover federal narcotics agent.
Relying on Hass v. State, 92 Nev. 256, 548 P.2d 1367 (1976), Tucker contends that his conviction should be overturned because the State did not present evidence at trial that he was 21 years of age or older. This court reversed Hass and disposed of Tucker’s contention in Wright v. State, 92 Nev. 734, 558 P.2d 1139 (1976).
Appellant next contends that his constitutional right of due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution has been violated. Specifically he cites the delay of eight months between the date of the alleged sale of the controlled substance and his arraignment. Tucker raised this issue in a pretrial petition for habeas corpus which was denied, and from which no appeal has been taken. By failing to avail himself of an appeal pursuant to the provisions of NRS 34.380(3),1 appellant has waived the issued of delay. Nix v. State, 91 Nev. 613, 541 P.2d 1 (1975); George v. State, 89 Nev. 47, 505 P.2d 1217 (1973); Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 420 P.2d 251 (1966).
[228]*228Finally, appellant contends that the trial court unlawfully enhanced his punishment pursuant to the provisions of NRS 453.321 (2) (a)(1).2
During appellant’s trial before the court, at the conclusion of the State’s case-in-chief, the prosecutor offered an exemplified copy of appellant’s prior conviction which was received without objection, thus his prior conviction was before the trial court at the time sentence was imposed. In the entirety of this case we perceive no error affecting appellant’s substantial rights.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
562 P.2d 827, 93 Nev. 226, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-nev-1977.