Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • 1 7 14 Judge Howard Order Violates NRS 189.010 Refusing To Forward Notice of Appeal To District Court

    Загружено:

    NevadaGadfly
    21 просмотров2 страницы
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 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 recent 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 the trial. Despite Coughlin’s then in custod

    Оригинальное название

    1 7 14 Judge Howard Order Violates NRS 189.010 Refusing to Forward Notice of Appeal to District Court

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 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 recent 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 the trial. Despite Coughlin’s then in custod

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    21 просмотров2 страницы

    1 7 14 Judge Howard Order Violates NRS 189.010 Refusing To Forward Notice of Appeal To District Court

    Загружено:

    NevadaGadfly
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN RE: THE MATTER OF ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ. NEVADA BAR NO: 9473 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case 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 recent 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 the trial. Despite Coughlin’s then in custod

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 2

    1

    2
    6
    I
    (I
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    II
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    21
    6
    28
    FILED
    Case No. II CR 22176 21
    Dept. 4
    JAN 07
    Reno
    IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE
    COUNTY OF WASHOE, STATE OF NEVADA
    CITY OF RENO,
    Plaintiff,
    vs. ORDER
    ZACIIARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
    Defendant.
    I
    Defendant Zachary Barker Coughlin has filed a document entitled "Notice oCAppeal
    of 12/10/13 Order to 2JDC (sic); Request for Submission of 2/27112 Motion". This motion is a
    continuation of numerous pleadings filed subsequent to an Order oflhe Second Judicial District COUl1
    aftirming the verdict andjudgmcnt of conviction of this Court dated March 15,2012.
    Defendant Coughlin has heen previously advised that an appeal in a civil or criminal
    case originating in thc Reno Municipal Court mLlst be taken and perfected in (he same manner as the
    same type of appeal from the Justice's Courts, as provided in the Nevada Revised Statutes. Reno
    Municipal Code Sec. 2.16.070. A defendant in a criminal action tried before a Justice of the Peace or
    Municipal Court Judge may appeal from the finaljudgmcnt to the district court at any time within 10
    days from the rendition ofthc judgment. NRS 189.0 10. Defendant Coughlin is well pastthe statutory
    time limit for addressing matters that should have been addressed and included in his original appeal
    in2011.
    Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,
    IT lS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Appeal of 12110113 Order to 2JDC
    (sic); Rcqnest for Submission of2/27/12 Motion are DENI!'D.
    DATED this 7''' day of January, 2014.
    Kenneth R. Howard, Judge
    Reno Municipal Court
    2
    .l
    4
    5
    6
    8
    9
    1()
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    J 9
    20
    21
    22
    23
    c"
    d
    26
    78
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that J am an employee ofthe Reno Municipal Court,
    Reno, Nevada, and that on this date J served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document,
    ORDER on the parly(ies) set forth below:
    Placing said document in a sealed envelope placed for collecting and mailing in the
    United Statcs 111ail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business
    practices.
    Facsimile (FAX).
    Rcno/Carson Messenger Service.
    Federal Express or other overnight delivery.
    Inner-office mail following ordinary business practices.
    Personal Delivery.
    City Attorney's Offiee
    P.O. Box 1900
    Reno, Nevada 89509
    Mr. Zachary Barker Coughlin
    c/o of Washoe County Jail
    Reno, Nevada
    DATED this __ . _ day of'January, 2014.
    Veronica Lopez

    Вам также может понравиться