Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2JDC Judge Elliott Order Granting Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice NRS 189.030

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    65 views2 pages
    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

    Original Title

    2JDC Judge Elliott Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice NRS 189.030(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this 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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    65 views2 pages

    2JDC Judge Elliott Order Granting Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice NRS 189.030

    Uploaded by

    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    5

    10
    15
    20
    25
    FILED
    Electronically
    07-16-2009:12:16:31 PM
    HowardW. Conyers
    ClerkoftheCourt
    1 Code: 2915
    #902497
    2
    3
    4
    INTHESECONDJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURTOFTHE STATEOF NEVADA
    6
    INAND FORTHECOUNTYOF WASHOE
    7
    ***
    8
    9 KIMBERLYCRADLER
    Appellant,
    Case No.:
    11
    vs.
    Dept. No.: 10
    12
    13 CITYOF RENO, amunicipal
    corporation
    14
    Respondent.
    16
    17 ORDER GRANTING MOnON TO DISMISS APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    18 On March4,2009, KIMBERLYCRADLER (hereafter"Appellant")wasconvicted of
    19 ViolationofExtended ProtectionOrder- abreachofRMC 8.12.140. Subsequently, the
    Appellant- acting in pro per- filedaNoticeofAppeal on April 20, 2009,and herOpening
    21 BriefwasfiledJune2, 2009.
    ,
    22 TheCITYOFRENO (hereafter"Respondent")filed aMotiontoDismissonJune15,
    23 2009. InsupportofitsMotion,theRespondentarguesthatdismissal isappropriateas the
    24 Appellanthasfailed toprovideatranscriptfromthepriorproceeding- aviolationof
    Nevada Rule ofAppellateProcedure9. ThisMotionwassubmittedforthis Court's
    26 considerationonJuly1,2009,andcomesbeforetheCourtunopposed
    1

    27
    28 1 DistrictCourtRule 13(3)provides, "Failureoftheopposing partytoserveandfile hiswrittenoppositionmay
    beconstruedas an admissionthatthemotionis meritoriousanda consenttograntingthesame."
    -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
    NRAP 9(a) requires the appellant file a transcript request form specifying the
    portions of the transcript requested no later than 15 days from the date the notice of
    appeal was filed. If no transcript is requested, the appellant must file and serve a
    certificate to that effect within the same time period. Id. A partis failure to comply with
    the time limits of this RUle may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of
    the appeal. NRAP 9(c).
    A review of the record reveals that no transcript request form was filed. Also absent
    was a filing indicating that no transcript is requested. This is in contravention of the clear
    language of NRAP 9(a). Therefore, pursuant to NRAP 9(c) and in light of the fact that no
    Opposition was filed, the Motion to Dismiss shall be granted without prejudice. As such,
    the Appellant may perfect her appeal by filing the necessary documents in accordance with
    aforementioned Rule.
    Also worth noting is a Request for Submission filed June 19,2009, concerning an
    "Emergency Motion for Stay". This Court was not provided with'a copy of the pertinent
    Motion and was therefore unable to review its contents. However, any deciSion concerning
    that Motion is rendered moot by this Order. Therefore, the Emergency Motion for Stay
    shall be denied as moot at this juncture.
    NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to
    Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.
    IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Appellant's Emergency Motion for Stay is
    DENIED as moot.
    DATED this day of July, 2009. /5

    "5fEiE P. ELLIOTT
    District Judge
    -2-

    You might also like