Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Filed: Order Denying Appellant'S Motion For A New Trial

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    1 views3 pages
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO 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 recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: 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. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is likely not sufficient.” As such, jurisdiction could not have vested with the district court as the

    Original Title

    8 27 12 2JDC Elliot Order Denying Mtn for New Trial NRAP 40 Equivalent Citing Remand Divested of Jurisdiciton to Rule on 22176 60838

    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 MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO 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 recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: 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. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is likely not sufficient.” As such, jurisdiction could not have vested with the district court as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views3 pages

    Filed: Order Denying Appellant'S Motion For A New Trial

    Uploaded by

    NevadaGadfly
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case ADDENDUM TO 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 recent Petition for Reinstatement Pursuant to SCR 111(10). FACTS: 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. Coughlin timely filed a Motion for New Trial which Judge Howard refused to adjudicate, indicating that Coughlin had not provided a basis for such. Coughlin timely filed a Notice of Appeal and ordered the transcript prepared by contacting the very transcriber the RMC insisted Coughlin must use. Coughlin attempted to make payment to such transcriber and she refused to accept such, and further refused to prepare the transcript. Coughlin apprised the RMC of all of this. District Court Judge Elliott entered on 1/5/12 an Order which made law of the case the fact that the “record on appeal” had already been filed, making any purported subsequent affirming of the ruling here based upon Coughlin’s alleged failure to (see 3/15/12 Order Affirming the Ruling of the RMC at page 911-913) “meet his burden in providing an adequate appellate record,” sufficient to required that “this Court must affirm the ruling of the Reno Municipal Court” clearly erroneously and patently misleading to boot: “ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE The record on appeal in the above-entitled matter having been filed with the Clerk of this Court on December 23, 2011; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant file and serve on Respondent an Opening Brief within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Opening Brief shall contain a statement of the errors committed in Reno Municipal Court, with accompanying authorities, and shall not exceed five pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve on Appellant an Answering Brief, which shall not exceed five pages, within twenty (20) days after the filing date of Appellant's Opening Brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's failure to file an Opening Brief within the time limitation hereinabove stated shall be deemed an admission that the appeal was not well founded and shall constitute adequate grounds for dismissal of the appeal. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that upon the briefs having been filed, the matter should be submitted by Appellant pursuant to WDCR 12(4). This Court will take the matter under submission without oral argument. DATED this S day of January, 2012. /s/ Judge Steven P. Elliott" Coughlin pointed out that, due to Judge Howard’s announcing the last part of his decision at the close of trial on 11/30/11 out of the presence of one of the parties (the City Attorney), “Additionally, a Notice of Entry of Order here from the RMC is likely required given the Order was complete outside the presence of one of the parties (made in absentia), and therefore rendition of Order is likely not sufficient.” As such, jurisdiction could not have vested with the district court as the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    1

    2
    3
    4
    5
    6 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    7 IN AND FOR THE COUNlY OF WASHOE
    8
    ***
    9
    10 ZACH COUGHLIN,
    11
    12
    13
    vs.
    Appellant, Case No.: CRll-2064
    Dept. No.: 10
    14 CIlY OF RENO, a municipal
    corporation,
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    Respondent.
    __________________________
    ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
    Presently before the Court, is a Motion for New Trial, or Pled in the Alternative,
    Motion to Alter or Amend filed by Appellant ZACH COUGHLIN ("Appellant'') on March 26,
    2012. Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, Respondent CIlY OF RENO ("Respondent'') filed
    a Motion to Strike Appellant's Motion for New Trial. Following, on July 25, 2012, Appellant
    22
    23 filed a Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Conviction and or Order Affirming it. Thereafter, on
    24 July 26, 2012, Appellant filed a Supplemental Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Conviction and
    25 or Order Affirming it. On that same date, Appellant filed a Request for Submission, thereb
    26 submitting the matter for the Court's conSideration.
    27 On March 15, 2012, this Court entered an Order denying the Appeal and affirming
    28 the decision of the Municipal Court. This Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case
    -1-
    F I L E D
    Electronically
    08-27-2012:10:15:18 AM
    Joey Orduna Hastings
    Clerk of the Court
    Transaction # 3176064
    01132
    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
    and the Appellant's Motion for New Trial is moot.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's Motion for a New
    Trial is DENIED.
    DATED this day of August, 2012.
    District Judge
    -2-
    01133
    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
    CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
    I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
    using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
    ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
    PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY OF RENO
    DATED this 031
    day of August, ~ <
    HEIDI HOWDEN
    judicial Assistant
    -3-
    01134

    You might also like