Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • NRS 189.030 (1) 2JDC Judge Flanagan Applying Civil Rules of Procedure To Excuse RMC's Failure To File Transcript

    Încărcat de

    NevadaGadfly
    30 vizualizări2 pagini
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE SCR 111(10 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 65587 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his May 7th, 2014 Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Asst. Bar Counsel King filed an SCR 111(6) Petition on 5/10/12 that attached the 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court thereto. However, it is not clear that such is affirming the conviction for petty theft rather than the Order for Summary Punishment of Contempt that Coughlin appealed in conjunction therewith. To whatever extent such is viewed as affirming the conviction, Coughlin submits this in a SCR 111(7) good cause sense and notes that, in 61462, he previously file a Petition to Dissolve such temporary suspension based on SCR 102(4)(D) based on his, perhaps, mistaken belief that such was applicable to temporary suspensions of the SCR 111(6) variety. Coughlin seeks to incorporate such 8/13/12 filing in 61462 herein to supplement the instant petition. Hereafter, the undersigned will cite to pages of the combined record in the petty larceny trial and appeal of the conviction therein underlying this matter, which comprises the 352 page 12/23/11 record on appeal filed by the RMC and all filings in the appeal thereof. Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. On 11/3/11, Coughlin filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such 10/27/11 Order by Judge Howard denying him court appointed counsel wherein Coughlin indicates that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, thus implicating SCR 111(6)’s characterization of the petty larceny charge as a “serious crime” requiring the appointment of counsel per ADKT 411 (2008 Indigent Defense Order) regardless of Judge Howard’s contention at trial that he need not appoint counsel unless Coughlin were to be incarcerated for the petty larceny charge (see page 1048). However, the states may provide greater protections than that required under federal law, and the combination of ADKT 411 and SCR 111(6) (attorney’s convicted of a “serious crime” receive no pre suspension hearing before their Fourteenth Amendment protected property right, ie, their law license, is temporarily suspended) mandated that Coughlin be provided court appointed counsel for such charge that he committed a “serious crime”, regardless of whether any incarceration was possible or actually ordered. Coughlin was rearrested on 11/13/11 for criminal trespass at his former home law office. The trial in this petty larceny matter had been scheduled for the following day, 11/14/11, however, upon Coughlin being transported to the RMC in the red jail clothing given to those place in mental segregation, consistent with the mandatory stay required where a competency evaluation is indicated, Judge Howard chose to not have Coughlin brought into the courtroom for

    Titlu original

    NRS 189.030(1) 2JDC Judge Flanagan Applying Civil Rules of Procedure to Excuse RMC's Failure to File Transcript

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE SCR 111(10 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 65587 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his May 7th, 2014 Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Asst. Bar Counsel King filed an SCR 111(6) Petition on 5/10/12 that attached the 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court thereto. However, it is not clear that such is affirming the conviction for petty theft rather than the Order for Summary Punishment of Contempt that Coughlin appealed in conjunction therewith. To whatever extent such is viewed as affirming the conviction, Coughlin submits this in a SCR 111(7) good cause sense and notes that, in 61462, he previously file a Petition to Dissolve such temporary suspension based on SCR 102(4)(D) based on his, perhaps, mistaken belief that such was applicable to temporary suspensions of the SCR 111(6) variety. Coughlin seeks to incorporate such 8/13/12 filing in 61462 herein to supplement the instant petition. Hereafter, the undersigned will cite to pages of the combined record in the petty larceny trial and appeal of the conviction therein underlying this matter, which comprises the 352 page 12/23/11 record on appeal filed by the RMC and all filings in the appeal thereof. Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. On 11/3/11, Coughlin filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such 10/27/11 Order by Judge Howard denying him court appointed counsel wherein Coughlin indicates that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, thus implicating SCR 111(6)’s characterization of the petty larceny charge as a “serious crime” requiring the appointment of counsel per ADKT 411 (2008 Indigent Defense Order) regardless of Judge Howard’s contention at trial that he need not appoint counsel unless Coughlin were to be incarcerated for the petty larceny charge (see page 1048). However, the states may provide greater protections than that required under federal law, and the combination of ADKT 411 and SCR 111(6) (attorney’s convicted of a “serious crime” receive no pre suspension hearing before their Fourteenth Amendment protected property right, ie, their law license, is temporarily suspended) mandated that Coughlin be provided court appointed counsel for such charge that he committed a “serious crime”, regardless of whether any incarceration was possible or actually ordered. Coughlin was rearrested on 11/13/11 for criminal trespass at his former home law office. The trial in this petty larceny matter had been scheduled for the following day, 11/14/11, however, upon Coughlin being transported to the RMC in the red jail clothing given to those place in mental segregation, consistent with the mandatory stay required where a competency evaluation is indicated, Judge Howard chose to not have Coughlin brought into the courtroom for

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    30 vizualizări2 pagini

    NRS 189.030 (1) 2JDC Judge Flanagan Applying Civil Rules of Procedure To Excuse RMC's Failure To File Transcript

    Încărcat de

    NevadaGadfly
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE SCR 111(10 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 65587 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO SCR 111(10) COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN by and through his attorney, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. and hereby supplements his May 7th, 2014 Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: Asst. Bar Counsel King filed an SCR 111(6) Petition on 5/10/12 that attached the 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court thereto. However, it is not clear that such is affirming the conviction for petty theft rather than the Order for Summary Punishment of Contempt that Coughlin appealed in conjunction therewith. To whatever extent such is viewed as affirming the conviction, Coughlin submits this in a SCR 111(7) good cause sense and notes that, in 61462, he previously file a Petition to Dissolve such temporary suspension based on SCR 102(4)(D) based on his, perhaps, mistaken belief that such was applicable to temporary suspensions of the SCR 111(6) variety. Coughlin seeks to incorporate such 8/13/12 filing in 61462 herein to supplement the instant petition. Hereafter, the undersigned will cite to pages of the combined record in the petty larceny trial and appeal of the conviction therein underlying this matter, which comprises the 352 page 12/23/11 record on appeal filed by the RMC and all filings in the appeal thereof. Coughlin was arrested on 9/9/11 and charged with the petit larceny of "a candy bar and cough drops" from a Walmart store. Coughlin applied for court appointed counsel, filing a sworn declaration of his indigency in a timely manner on 10/26/11 which attested to Coughlin then having a yearly income of $11,000, which easily met the presumptive indigency threshold of less than 200% the federal poverty guideline for a household of one. Further, Coughlin's "Application for Court Appointed Counsel" made clear that he had just been ordered summarily evicted the day prior to filing such application on October 26th, 2011. RMC Judge Kenneth Howard, the presiding judge in the matter, violated ADKT 411 in himself ruling on such application in his Order of 10/27/11 denying Coughlin court appointed counsel, as well as denying Coughlin a continuance or new trial date. On 11/3/11, Coughlin filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such 10/27/11 Order by Judge Howard denying him court appointed counsel wherein Coughlin indicates that he is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada, thus implicating SCR 111(6)’s characterization of the petty larceny charge as a “serious crime” requiring the appointment of counsel per ADKT 411 (2008 Indigent Defense Order) regardless of Judge Howard’s contention at trial that he need not appoint counsel unless Coughlin were to be incarcerated for the petty larceny charge (see page 1048). However, the states may provide greater protections than that required under federal law, and the combination of ADKT 411 and SCR 111(6) (attorney’s convicted of a “serious crime” receive no pre suspension hearing before their Fourteenth Amendment protected property right, ie, their law license, is temporarily suspended) mandated that Coughlin be provided court appointed counsel for such charge that he committed a “serious crime”, regardless of whether any incarceration was possible or actually ordered. Coughlin was rearrested on 11/13/11 for criminal trespass at his former home law office. The trial in this petty larceny matter had been scheduled for the following day, 11/14/11, however, upon Coughlin being transported to the RMC in the red jail clothing given to those place in mental segregation, consistent with the mandatory stay required where a competency evaluation is indicated, Judge Howard chose to not have Coughlin brought into the courtroom for

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    5

    10
    15
    20
    25
    FILE0
    Electronically
    2014-04-11 03:33:41 M
    JoeyOrdunaHastin s
    Clerkofthe Court
    Transaction # 43840 5
    1
    2
    3
    4
    6
    IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    7
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
    8
    9
    GEROLD LEE GORMAN,
    II
    vs.
    Appellant,
    12
    13
    14
    THE CITY OF RENO,
    Respondent.
    Case No.: CR14-0202
    Dept. No.: 7
    ORDER
    16 On March 25,2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the
    17 grounds that Appellant failed to obtain transcripts of the lower court's proceedings.
    18 On April 7, 2014, Appellant filed his Opposition arguing that the transcripts are not
    19 required and this appeal is not defective simply because of an unordered transcript.
    Appellant then requests an extension of time to obtain the transcripts. On April 8,
    21 2014, Respondent filed a Reply and submitted this matter for decision.
    22 This matter arises from a traffic violation which occurred on September 25,
    23 2013, while Appellant, traveling northbound on 1-580, exited the freeway at North
    24 McCarran Boulevard. As Appellant approached the off-ramp intersection, he
    stopped and turned right on a red light, in violation of posted signage. Appellant
    26 was issued a citation to which he pled not guilty. On January 22,2014, after a
    27 bench trial. Appellant was found guilty of violating RMC 6.06.120. On January 30,
    28 2014, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and posted the required bond.
    1
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    Appealsfrom themunicipalcourtmustbefiledinaccordancewiththe
    provisionsofNRS5.073. NRS266.595. Thepracticesandproceedingsinthe
    municipalcourtmustconformtothepracticesandproceedingsofthejusticecourt.
    NRS5.073. TheRenoMunicipalCourtisacourtofrecord, thus,thedistrictcourtis
    boundtotherecordonappeal. NRS 1.020;NRS5.073. Withinten(10) daysafter
    filingthenoticeofappealtheappellantisrequiredtoordera transcriptof the
    proceedings. JCRCP74(b). Further,theappellantisrequiredtodeposit$100with
    themunicipalcourttoabsorbthecostoftherecordandforpaymentof the
    transcripts. Id. Oncetheappellantobtainsthetranscriptheisrequiredtofurnish
    a copyofthetranscriptonalltheparties. Id. Failuretoarrangefor a transcriptor
    paythefilingfee, absenta goodfaithjustificationfor thedelay,mayresultin
    dismissal. JCRCP76(a),
    Appellantprovidesnoexplanationforhisfailure tofiletheappropriate
    requestfortranscripts,orpaythe$100filingfee withinthelimitationsperiod.
    Despitethis,Appellantrequestsanextensionoftimetoobtainandpayforthe
    transcripts. However,anextensionoftimemustbemadewithintheten(10) day
    limitationperiodprescribedbyJCRCP74(b). JCRCP74A(d). Appellantwas
    thereforerequiredtomovefor anextensionoftimepriortoFebruary5,2014.
    Basedontheforegoing, thecourtfindsAppellantisprocedurallybarredfrom
    appellatereview. TheMotion to Dismiss isGRANTED.
    ITISSOORDERED.
    DATEDthis /1 dayof April,2014.
    PATRICKFLANA
    DistrictJudge
    2

    S-ar putea să vă placă și