Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 2019
Docket78355
StatusPublished

This text of Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. State (Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. 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
Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. State, (Neb. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FREDERICK VONSEYDEWITZ, No. 78355 Appellant, vs. FILED THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. OCT 2 it M19

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE EL CLE

BY EPUTY CLERK

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge. Appellant argues that his classification as a Tier 3 sex offender pursuant to NRS 179D.117 is improper because application of the 2007 legislative amendments in Assembly Bill 579 (A.B. 579) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.2 We conclude that the district court did not err because appellant's ex post facto argument lacks merit. State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 519-20, 306 P.3d 369, 388 (2013) (determining that retroactive application of A.B. 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions); ACLU of Neu. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1053-54,

'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response from the State is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See NRAP 34(0(3).

2 In his informal brief, appellant also argues that he will be subject to various movement and residence restrictions in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, appellant did not raise these claims in the district court. We decline to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

In) 1917A er 431e3 • 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (Masto /1) (determining that legislative amendments in A.B. 579 to sex offender registration did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFF1RMED.3

C.J. Gibb

J. Parraguirre

, Sr. J. Douglas

cc: Honorable Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge Frederick Vonseydewitz Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME Coma OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 461.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vonseydewitz (Frederick) Vs. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vonseydewitz-frederick-vs-state-nev-2019.