Dicus v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, In and For Washoe County

Decision Date02 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 12816,12816
CitationDicus v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, In and For Washoe County, 625 P.2d 1175, 97 Nev. 273 (Nev. 1981)
PartiesEric Alan DICUS, Petitioner, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, In and For the COUNTY OF WASHOE, and the Honorable Peter I. Breen, a District Judge thereof, Respondents. *
CourtNevada Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Dicus seeks extraordinary relief mandating that the district court"forthwith transfer the case and record to the juvenile division."Dicus is under indictment for attempted murder alleged to have been committed when he was seventeen years old.

The words, "forthwith transfer the case and record to the juvenile division" are taken directly from NRS 62.050, which is also cited in the body of the petition before us.NRS 62.050 reads as follows:

62.050.Transfer of cases to juvenile division.If, during the pendency of a criminal or quasi-criminal charge, except a charge of murder or attempted murder, brought against a person in any court, it is ascertained that the person was under the age of 18 years when the alleged offense was committed, the court shall forthwith transfer the case and record to the juvenile division.The court making such transfer shall order the child to be taken forthwith to the place of detention designated by the juvenile division or to that court itself, or release the child to the custody of some suitable person, to be brought before the court at a time designated.

The statute excepts "a charge of murder or attempted murder"; the minor is under indictment for attempted murder, so there can be no transfer to the juvenile division as requested in the petition.SeeLehmann v. Warden, 87 Nev. 24, 480 P.2d 155(1971).

Although it is not requested in the prayer of the petition, petitioner states in the body of the petition that he is "seeking specific performance of his plea bargain."There was a plea bargain in which Dicus agreed to plead guilty to a supplemental information charging battery with the use of a deadly weapon.After the plea the trial judge had second thoughts, brought Dicus and counsel back into court and, after concluding that there was no jurisdiction to accept the plea, dismissed the supplemental information.

It would appear that...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • Barton v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 12, 2001
    ...Owens v. State, 100 Nev. 286, 680 P.2d 593 (1984); Litteral v. State, 97 Nev. 503, 634 P.2d 1226 (1981); Dicus v. Second Judicial District Court, 97 Nev. 273, 625 P.2d 1175 (1981); Graves v. Young, 82 Nev. 433, 420 P.2d 618 (1966). 11. See, e.g., McIntosh v. State, 113 Nev. 224, 932 P.2d 10......
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2012
    ...Owens, Barton also overrules the cases on which Owens relied—Graves v. Young, 82 Nev. 433, 420 P.2d 618 (1966), and Dicus v. District Court, 97 Nev. 273, 625 P.2d 1175 (1981). In Owens, this court reversed a battery conviction on double jeopardy grounds, holding that, while battery is not a......
  • Marine v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • June 19, 1990
    ...beyond the offense charged. The then Delaware statutory scheme mirrored that of other jurisdictions. See Dicus v. Second Judicial District Court, 97 Nev. 273, 625 P.2d 1175 (1981) (criminal court which has jurisdiction over juvenile based on crime charged and may accept plea for lesser incl......
  • Grisham v. Grisham
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2012
    ... ... 55394, 57433.Supreme Court of Nevada.Dec. 6, 2012.289 P.3d 232 Robert W ... Restatement (Second) of Contracts 27 (1965); see Dolge v. Masek, 70 ... or agreement with reference to a pending judicial proceeding, made by a party to the proceeding or ... ...
  • Get Started for Free