Schachter v. State, 081016 NVSC, 67673

Docket Nº:67673
Party Name:MARC PAUL SCHACHTER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Hardesty, J., Saitta, J., Pickering, J. Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
Case Date:August 10, 2016
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

MARC PAUL SCHACHTER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 67673

Supreme Court of Nevada

August 10, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of attempted robbery. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge.

On June 9, 2014, appellant Marc Schachter was arrested after attempting to steal from Walmart a backpack, heat pad, Icy Hot electrical pad, and a box of hair dye. On June 23, 2014, Schachter requested that he be allowed to represent himself and his request was granted on July 24. On that day, Schachter asked for investigative services, which court-appointed standby counsel arranged to provide around July 31. Schachter filed a motion to dismiss the amended information arguing that the delays in granting his requests resulted in the loss of exculpatory surveillance video footage showing him entering the Walmart wearing the stolen backpack because the surveillance video was destroyed, per store policy, before the investigator issued the subpoena for the video.1 The district court denied the motion and Schachter appeals.

This court reviews a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion. Hill v. State, 124 Nev. 546, 550, 188 P.3d 51, 54 (2008). On appeal, Schachter argues that the cumulative delays by the justice and district court in granting his requests for self-representation and for reasonable investigative services resulted in a denial of his right to self-representation and due process in that he was denied the means of developing and presenting an adequate defense. Citing California law, Schachter argues that pro se defendants have "the right to reasonably necessary defense services." People v. James, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 (Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (recognizing this right under the Sixth Amendment). However, even if we were to recognize this right, Schachter must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure to provide him with the reasonably necessary services to prepare his defense. See id. (providing that to be entitled to reversal on this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP