Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealhearingmotionhabeas corpusappellant
defendantjurisdictionappealtrialmotionappellant

Related Cases

Simpson v. Chesley, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2013 WL 6210254
View Case »
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
South Carolina Nat. Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,228
View Case »
Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A.N.S. 874
View Case »
Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 918 P.2d 321

Facts

On May 2, 1988, the appellant was convicted of five counts of attempted sexual assault and sentenced to five consecutive fifteen-year terms. After several unsuccessful attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence through post-conviction relief and habeas corpus petitions, the appellant filed a motion for modification of his sentence in 1994, arguing that the sentencing was based on false information. The district court denied this motion without a hearing, prompting the appellant to appeal.

On August 16, 1994, appellant filed in the district court a 'motion for modification of an illegal sentence.' Appellant contended that the district court sentenced him based on incomplete and untrue facts.

Issue

Whether the appellant's motion to modify his sentence should be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of determining the timeliness of his notice of appeal.

The sole issue before this court is whether the appeal period in this case is governed by NRAP 4(b), or NRS 34.575(1).

Rule

The court held that a motion to modify a sentence is not governed by the same appeal timelines as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.

NRAP 4(b) provides that '[i]n a criminal case, the notice of appeal by a defendant shall be filed in the district court within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the appellant's motion and determined that it was a separate criminal proceeding rather than a habeas corpus petition. It emphasized that the rules governing habeas corpus do not apply to motions to modify sentences, and that the appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal under NRAP 4(b) resulted in a lack of jurisdiction over the appeal.

We have expressly held that the district court's order granting or denying such a motion is appealable as the functional equivalent of an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial pursuant to NRS 177.015(1)(b).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal as required by NRAP 4(b).

We conclude, therefore, that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Who won?

The State prevailed in this case as the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The state opposed the petition.

You must be