Curtis v. Sheriff, Washoe County
| Decision Date | 31 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8695,8695 |
| Citation | 547 P.2d 1360,92 Nev. 209 |
| Parties | Gerald M. CURTIS, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
William N. Dunseath, Public Defender, and William B. Puzey, Deputy Public Defender, Reno, for appellant.
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Larry R. Hicks, Dist. Atty., and Calvin R. Dunlap, Deputy Dist. Atty., Reno, for respondent.
Indicted on November 5, 1975, for murdering Kenneth Todd Butler, a two-year-old child, Gerald M. Curtis was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on December 3, 1975. The record establishes that, although the Grand Jury transcript was filed November 14, 1975, defense counsel prepared no pretrial habeas petition prior to arraignment. Therefore, attempting to accommodate counsel, the district court granted Curtis an additional 21 days, to and including December 24, in which to file 'motions and writs.' However, as defense counsel declined to waive the 'sixty-day rule.' NRS 178.556, the court set Curtis's trial to begin January 5, 1976. 1
Of course, the district court's order, purporting to allow Curtis the right to file a pretrial petition for habeas corpus notwithstanding his entry of a plea, and his acceptance of a trial date, directly contravened NRS 34.380(1)(c)(1). 2 Moreover, subsequent events occasioned one of the very procedural dislocations which NRS 34.380 was amended in 1973 to eliminate: defense counsel filed a pretrial habeas petition close to the eve of trial, and repeated continuances of the scheduled trial date resulted. On this appeal, therefore, we are constrained to review the import of counsel's conduct.
The record reflects that defense counsel took no action whatever until December 29, 1975, i.e. three judicial days before Curtis's trial was set to commence. Then, having previously insisted on an early trial date, defense counsel and Curtis 'stipulated' with the prosecution that the assigned date should be vacated, and a later date allowed. The district court purported to approve this 'stipulation,' vacated the January 5 trial setting, set the habeas petition for January 9, and assigned Curtis a new trial date on March 15, 1976.
Defense counsel subsequently stipulated to continue the hearing on Curtis's habeas petition, and finally caused it to be heard on January 30, 1976. 3 However, the district court did not decide the petition until March 5, 1976, at which time it ruled adversely to Curtis. Thus, for the second time, Curtis was again permitted to delay his scheduled trial; we are advised by the Second Judicial District's court administrator that the March 15 date was not utilized for any other trial; and Curtis's trial was again reset, and is now scheduled for May 17, 1976. Accordingly, were our court also to ignore NRS 34.380(1)(c) (1)--reviewing formally the supposed 'merits' of Curtis's petition notwithstanding that legislative command, and taking as much time to write an opinion as the district court found necessary to reach its decision--then the third trial date now scheduled might also have to be vacated, and Curtis's case allotted yet a fourth date for trial. 4
In the instant case, the record shows no excuse for violating NRS 34,380(1) (c)(1), except that counsel indicates he has done so repeatedly in the past, and considers his accustomed procedures more 'convenient' than those established by law. Counsel's tactic of seeking to withdraw the not guilty plea heretofore entered, solely and only to circumvent our statute's mandatory language, was considered and specifically disapproved in Kline v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. ---, 546 P.2d 1000 (1976 Adv.Op. No. 38). As noted in Kline: 92 Nev. at ---, 546 P.2d at 1000.
We do not fault the district court for seeking to accommodate counsel. However, in our view, this court may not properly ignore NRS 34.380(1)(c)(1), merely because we might deem other procedural devices more 'convenient,' which it happens we do not. Certainly, neither the district court nor counsel may constrain us to accept alternative procedures counsel have devised as preferable to our statute.
This appeal is therefore dismissed; remittitur will issue forthwith; trial may and should proceed on the date now scheduled. 5
1 NRS 178.556 provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial