Yava (Angela) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: May 12, 2014
• Docket: 63932
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

There is no indication in the record that Yava objected to the

criminal information or the verdict form, and defenseS counsel expressly

stated for the record that she had no objection to the instructions provided

to the jury, including the instruction on the elements of "transportation of

a controlled substance." See Grey v. State, 124 Nev. 110, 120, 178 P.3d

154, 161 (2008) ("Failure to object below generally precludes review by this

court; however, we may address plain error and constitutional error sua

sponte." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, Yava fails to

offer any persuasive authority or argument in support of her claim that

the definition of "transport" is unclear. See State v. Catanio, 120 Nev.

1030, 1033, 102 P.3d 588, 590 (2004) (a statute is ambiguous when it

"lends itself to two or more reasonable interpretations"); see also State v.

Lucero, 127 Nev. „ 249 P.3d 1226, 1228 (2011) ("[W]e review

questions of statutory interpretation de novo."); Sheriff v. Witzenburg, 122

Nev. 1056, 1061, 145 P.3d 1002, 1005 (2006) (stating that we will not look

beyond statutory plain language when the meaning is clear). Yava fails to

demonstrate that her substantial rights were affected, see NRS 178.602;

Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) ("[T]he burden is

on the defendant to show actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice."),

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (ID) 1947A 91e7:47 and we conclude that she is not entitled to relief Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2

J. Hardesty

r—Dt7puti , J. Douglas

Cherry Citcut J.

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Elko County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

2 The fast track statement submitted by counsel for Yava does not comply with the applicable formatting requirements because the brief utilizes a proportionally-spaced typeface that is not 14-point or larger and the footnote is not in the same size as the body of the brief See NRAP 32(a)(5); see also NRAP 3C(h)(1) (requiring fast track filings to comply with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4)-(6)). Counsel for Yava is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 19474 e