Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Code: 1170
JOHN J. KADLIC
Reno City Attorney
Pamela G. Roberts
Deputy City Attorney
Nevada State Bar No. 4041
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
(775) 334-2050
Attorneys for Respondent
9 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
lOIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
11
12
13 ZACHARY COUGHLIN CASE NO.: CR11-2064
Appellant,
14
DEPT.: 10
15 vs.
16 CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
Respondent. /
ANSWERING BRIEF
COMES NOW the Respondent CITY OF RENO ("City"), by and through Pamela G.
Roberts, Deputy City Attorney, and hereby files its Answering Brief as follows. This Brief is
based upon the pleadings and documents on file herein, and the points and authorities which are
set forth below and by this reference made a part hereof.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 14, 2011, a criminal complaint was filed charging Zachary Coughlin
(herein after Appellant) with Petit Larceny, a violation of Reno Municipal Code (RMC)
8.10.040. The Appellant was arraigned on October 10,,2011 and entered a not guilty plea to the
charge and the matter was set for trial on November 14,2011. On October 26, 2011, Appellant
-1-
F I L E D
Electronically
02-23-2012:01:17:52 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2783188
00729
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
filed an Application for Appointment of Legal, Defender and a separate motion for a new trial
date. On October 27, 2011, the Honorable Ken Howard entered an Order denying Appellant's
Application for Appointment of Legal Defender, stating that if the trial resulted in a conviction,
there would be no jail sentence imposed. The November 14, 2011 trial date was continued by
the Court and a new trial date was set for November 30, 2011. Appellant filed a new Motion for
Continuance on the date of the trial which was denied. The trial was in front of the Honorable
Ken Howard of the Reno Municipal Court and the Appellant was found guilty and a Judgment of
Conviction was entered on November 30, 2011 imposing a total fine in the amount of $400.00.
The Appellant untimely filed his Notice of Appeal of the trial court's judgment on
December 13, 2011. It should be noted that Appellant also filed in Reno Municipal Court a
Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Recusal and Motion
for Publication of :rranscript at Public expense, all of which were denied in an Order entered on
December 15, 2011.
This Honorable Court issued the Order for Briefing Schedule on January 5, 2012
requiring Appellant to file and serve his Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of the
Order and imposing a five page limit. On January 19, 2012, Respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss Appeal based upon Appellant's untimely filing his notice of appeal. On January 30,
2012, Appellant filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal. On February 1, 2012,
Appellant filed a pleading entitled "Supplement to Motion to Dismiss". On February 6, 2012,
Respondent filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Request for Submission.
No Order regarding the Motion to Dismiss has been filed or entered.
On February 7, 2012, Appellant filed and served his Opening Brief which exceeded the
five page limit by three pages. It should be noted that Appellant's Opening Brief was due on
February 6, 2012 because the 30
th
day fell on Saturday, February 4, 2012. On February 7, 2012,
Appellant also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief. Pursuant to WCDR
11, Motions for Extension of time shall be made upon 5 days notice. Respondent did not file any
opposition to Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time and this Honorable Court has not
entered any Order extending the time for Appellant to file his Opening Brief or granting his
-2-
00730
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
request for an exception to this the five page limit. On February 22, 2012, without leave from
this Honorable Court, Appellant served Respondent a Supplement to Appellant's Opening Brief.
Respondent hereby files its Answering Brief in accordance with this Honorable Court's
Scheduling Order. In Appellant's Supplement to Motion to Dismiss he references that he was
directed to supply the 2
nd
Judicial District Court and the Respondent a copy of the trial transcript
or in the alternative, a copy of the audio CD of the trial. As of February 23, 2012, the
Respondent has not received either a trial transcript or copy of the audio CD of the trial.
Accordingly, the Record on Appeal is deficient and the Appeal should be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The City presented testimony through Loss Prevention Officer Thomas Frontino
and Reno Sparks Indian Colony Police Officer Braunworth in support of the charge of Petit
Larceny. The Appellant zealously cross-examined each witness. Appellant called Reno Sparks
Indian Colony Police Officer Crawford to the stand in his case. There was sufficient evidence for
the trial court to find the Appellant guilty of Petit Larceny. Respondel).t is unable to cite to the
facts or testimony presented in this case as the Appellant did not provide either a trial transcript
or audio CD. However, should this Honorable Court receive and review the audio CD,
Respondent believes that the testimony of the City's witnesses provided sufficient evidence to
support the conviction.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him; the City
respectfully disagrees with that contention. The Nevada Supreme Court in Wilkins v. State, 96
Nev. 367, 609 P.2d 309 (1990) determined the standard to be used on appeal when an appellant
challenges his or her conviction based on insufficient evidence. In Wilkins at 313, the Court
states:
"In reviewing the evidence supporting ajury's verdict, the question is not whether
this Court is convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but
whether the jury, acting reasonably, could have been convinced to that certitude
by the evidence it had a right to consider."
-3-
00731
5
10
15
20
25
___ _
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
In the instant case, the evidence of guilt was substantial and uncontroverted. Three
witnesses testified during the trial. The evidence in the case at hand was substantial and is
sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact.
Appellant's Opening Brief and other Motions include references to audio and video
recordings and receipts that were not admitted into evidence and are not part of the record.
Appellant's speculative arguments are unsupported by the evidence and are without merit.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to timely file his notice of appeal, failed to complete the
record on appeal, failed to timely file his Opening Brief and exceeded the page limit and has
failed to comply with applicable Court Rules. For all of these reasons and the foregoing
argument set forth above, the Trial Court's finding of guilt and conviction for petit larceny
should be affirmed and the Appeal should be dismissed.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on the 23nf day of February, 2012.
JOHN J. KADLIC
Reno City Attorney
By:
PAMELA G. ROBERTS
Deputy City Attorney
P. O. Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89505
Tel: (775) 334-2050
Attorneysfor Respondent, CITY OF RENO
-4-
00732
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
Reno City Attorney
. P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
AFFIRMATION
Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document Answering Brief
(Title of Document)
filed in case number: ______________________
Document does not contain the social security number of any person
-OR-
D
Document contains the social security number of a person as required by:
D
A specific state or federal law, to wit:
(State specific state or federal law)
-OR-
D
For the administration of a public program
-OR-
D
For an application for a federal or state grant
Date: February 23,2012
(Signature)
Pamela G. Roberts
(Print Name)
City of Reno
(Attorney for)
00733
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
Reno City Attorney
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the RENO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, and that on this date, I am serving the foregoing document(s) on the
party(s) set forth below by:
Placing an original or true copy thereof in a sealed envelope placed for collection and
mailing in the United States Mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary
business practices.
D
Personal delivery.
D
Facsimile (FAX).
D
Federal Express or other overnight delivery.
D
Reno/Carson Messenger Service.
addressed as follows:
Zachary Barker Coughlin, Esq.
1422 East 9
th
St #2
Reno, NV 89512
DATED this 23rd day of February 2012.
1\

Penelope H. Colt r
An Employee of the Reno City Attorney
00734