Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Patricia McClain was at a nail salon having her nails done when Defendant Timothy Hobbs entered and became belligerent. After an argument between the two, Defendant left the salon, only to return later. He spit in Ms. McClainâs face, and threw a rock through her vehicleâs windshield. The State charged Defendant with domestic battery, injury to property and requested a âhabitual criminalâ sentence enhancement. Ultimately the district court convicted Defendant and sentenced him to 10 to 25 years in prison for domestic battery with an additional year for property damage. Defendant appealed, challenging whether spitting on another constituted battery under state law. Furthermore, Defendant challenged whether the evidence introduced against him at trial was sufficient to support the enhanced sentence. The Supreme Court ruled that spitting does constitute battery under state law, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction and the sentence he received. The Court affirmed the district courtâs decision.

In 1990, Appellant Robert Stockmeier pled guilty to sexually assaulting a nine-year-old boy. Appellantâs pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) stated that Appellant used a weapon during the course of the offense, but the record at trial did not reflect that a weapon was used. Appellant objected to the statement pertaining to the weapon in his PSI. The sentencing court noted Appellantâs objections to the PSI, but did not rule on them. The court then sentenced Appellant to two consecutive life sentences, to which Appellant did not directly appeal. Instead, Appellant filed two post-conviction petitions in an attempt to set the PSIâs record straight. At a hearing, the district court stated that it believed that any inaccuracies in the PSI should be corrected. The State and Appellant conferred to adjust the PSIâs wording to better reflect the facts of his case, but they could not agree on the terms. The court stepped in to make the necessary amendments to the PSI, but refused the make the changes pertaining to use of a weapon. Years later, Appellant was eligible for parole. The Parole Board denied Appellantâs parole based in part on the factually incorrect PSI. Appellant petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the entire record. The Supreme Court held that because Nevada lacked a statutory or administrative process by which a prisoner may challenge alleged inaccuracies in a PSI, the prisoner must petition the district court for relief. If the matter cannot be resolved at the district court, then a prisoner may petition the Supreme Court. In Appellantâs case, the Court found that neither the appellate court nor the Parole Board had authority to amend Appellantâs PSI. Only after the PSI is set as accurate can the Parole Board rely on it to make future determinations of a prisonerâs parole. Therefore, the Court remanded Appellantâs case for further proceedings.