3 15 12 2jdc judge elliott order affirming ruling of the reno municipal court rmc violating nrs...

7/29/2019 3 15 12 2JDC Judge Elliott Order Affirming Ruling of the Reno Municipal Court RMC Violating NRS 189.035 Judicial

1/4

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,

vs.Appellant, Case No.: CRll-2064

Dept. No.: 10CITY OF RENO a municipal corporation,

Respondent.ORDER FFIRMING RULING OF THE RENO MUNICIP L COURT

Presently before the Court is an Appeal from a ruling of the Reno Municipal Court,filed by Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter Appellant',) on December 23,2011. Following, on February 7 2012, Appellant filed his Opening Brief on Appeal.Thereafter, on February 23, 2012, Respondent CITY OF RENO (hereinafter Respondent )filed its Answering Brief. The matter is now before the Court for its consideration.

This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno MunicipalCourt. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation ofRMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal withthe Court.

Although Appellant's arguments on appeal are unclear, Appellant raises a widevariety of issues, including, inter alia that he was denied his Sixth Amendment Right toCounsel, that the Municipal Court erred in failing to grant him a continuance, that theprosecution engaged in misconduct, that he was refused an opportunity to testify on his

-1-

F I L E DElectronically

03-15-2012:06:21:48 PMJoey Orduna Hastings

Clerk of the CourtTransaction # 2829786

00911


2/4

own behalf, that certain evidence should have been suppressed pursuant to the FourthAmendment of the United States Constitution, that his conviction is not supported bysufficient evidence, and that "[f]urther improprieties and due process deficiencies"occurred.

Unfortunately, Appellant neither supports his arguments with relevant authority norcitations to relevant portions of the record. Most importantly, Appellant has failed toprovide this Court with a copy of the transcript of relevant proceedings in the RenoMunicipal Court. The Nevada Supreme Court has held that an "[a]ppellant has the ultimateresponsibility to provide this court with 'portions of the record essential to determination ofissues raised in appellant's appeaL'" Thomas v State, 120 Nev. 37 n. 4 83 P.3d 818(2004) citingNRAP 30(b)(3). Further, NRAP 28(e) provides that "[e]very assertion inbriefs regarding matters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the page of thetranscript or appendix where the matter relied on is to be found."

While Appellant did provide this Court with a Compact Disc containing a recording ofthe Municipal Court proceedings, Appellant did not cite to the portions of the Compact Discthat he felt supported his arguments, and it is not the responsibility of this Court to guesswhich portions of the Compact Disc might support Appellant's arguments. n short,Appellant did not satisfy his responsibility to supply nd cite to relevant portions of therecord merely by producing a Compact Disc recording of the entire Municipal Courtproceeding.

n light of Appellant's failure to provide this Court with an adequate appellaterecord, and Appellant's correspondent failure to cite to such a record, this Court is unableto conduct a meaningful review of Appellant's appeal. Thus, Appellant has failed to meetIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

-200912


3/4

his burden in providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm the rulingof the Reno Municipal Court.!

NOW THEREFORE IT S HEREBY ORDERED that the ruling of the RenoMunicipal Court is AFFIRMED.

IT S FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded back to the RenoMunicipal Court for all further proceedings.

DATED this 5 day of March, 2012.

t is worth noting that, pursuant to NRS 4.410(2), [t]he fees for transcripts and copies [of municipal courtproceedings] must be paid by the party ordering them. In a civil case the preparation of the transcript neednot commence until the fees have e ~ n deposited with the deputy clerk of the court." Accordingly, NRS189.030, which requires the municipal court to transmit various papers to the district court upon appeal, doesnot require action until such fees have been paid. Here, it appears that Appellant never paid the requisitefees to secure the transcription of the proceedings. For this reason, the appellate record is incomplete.

-300913


4/4

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court byusing the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLINPAMELA ROBERTS ESQ. for CITY OF RENO

DATED this /5 day of March ~ ~~ Judicial Assistant

-400914

3 15 12 2jdc judge elliott order affirming ruling of the reno municipal court rmc violating nrs...

Documents