Watson (James) v. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 2013
Docket62210
StatusUnpublished

This text of Watson (James) v. State (Watson (James) 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
Watson (James) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Opinion

120 months for battery with a deadly weapon and 24 to 60 months for child abuse. Appellant challenges his sentences on appeal. First, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences considering that he does not have a significant criminal record, his wife suffered no permanent physical injuries, and he suffers from alcoholism. A district court enjoys broad discretion in sentencing matters, see Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), including the discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1); Warden, Nev. State Prison v. Peters, 83 Nev. 298, 303, 429 P.2d 549, 552 (1967). The district court was aware of the mitigating circumstances to which appellant refers. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that consecutive sentences were appropriate because appellant's "horrible violence" was "directed clearly at different people." We discern no abuse of discretion in this instance. Second, appellant suggests that the district court's sentencing decision was improperly based on his unwillingness to acknowledge his guilt by entering a no contest plea. In this, he argues that the district court concluded that he was avoiding responsibility for his crimes by blaming his actions on alcoholism. At sentencing, counsel acknowledged appellant's alcoholism and represented that appellant had consumed sufficient alcohol on the day of the incident to black out, leaving him with no recollection of the event. The district court clearly considered appellant's alcoholism but was also influenced by the violent nature of the offenses and the fact that two victims were involved. Given appellant's reliance upon his alcoholism as mitigation and the district court's

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) I947A

t - L :4:7,11,-MV74, " 5M1=11111111111111rWf::= - _k! consideration of other factors in its sentencing decision, we discern no error in this regard. Having considered appellant's claims and concluded that they lack merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J. J.

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

:1W11PW(U1S-1147-AW ZnaMERIMMEMEISIMIOWMENIEMR5

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

Related

Houk v. State
747 P.2d 1376 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1987)
Warden, Nevada State Prison v. Peters
429 P.2d 549 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Watson (James) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-james-v-state-nev-2013.