Donahue v. City of Sparks, 26052
| Decision Date | 04 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 26052,26052 |
| Citation | 903 P.2d 225,111 Nev. 1281 |
| Parties | Thomas DONAHUE, Appellant, v. The CITY OF SPARKS, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
FACTS
Appellant Thomas Donahue ("Donahue") was charged with the violation of three ordinances of the City of Sparks ("City"): driving under the influence, careless driving and failure to decrease speed. All three violations arose out of one incident which occurred on August 22, 1993.
Prior to trial, Donahue filed a demand for a jury trial. The municipal court granted Donahue's request noting that although a jury trial was not required, it was within the court's discretion to grant one when warranted by "unique and important policy considerations." The City filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition in the district court, arguing that the municipal court lacked authority to grant a jury trial on a discretionary basis. The district court agreed and granted certiorari.
Donahue appeals, arguing that the municipal court has discretionary authority to order a jury trial and that a jury trial is required because he faces a potential aggregate sentence of 18 months. We disagree.
This court has held that because municipal courts are created by statute, their jurisdiction is limited to that granted by statute. McKay v. City of Las Vegas, 106 Nev. 203, 205, 789 P.2d 584, 585 (1990). The City is an incorporated city existing under a special charter and thus is not subject to the statutory prohibition 1 against jury trials in municipal courts. Sparks City Charter, Art. I, § 1.010, cl. 2; see also Blanton v. North Las Vegas Mun. Court, 103 Nev. 623, 626-28, 748 P.2d 494, 496-97 (1987), aff'd, 489 U.S. 538, 109 S.Ct. 1289, 103 L.Ed.2d 550 (1989). However, there are no procedures or provisions in the Nevada Revised Statutes, Sparks City Charter or the Sparks Municipal Code for summoning or selecting juries in municipal court. We conclude that absent an express grant of authority, a municipal court lacks discretion to order a jury trial where one is not required by state or federal constitutional law.
Donahue contends, in the alternative, that he was entitled to a jury trial because he faces a potential aggregate sentence in excess of six months. The City conceded at oral argument that under Albitre v. State, 103 Nev. 281, 738 P.2d 1307 (1987), Donahue could not be convicted and sentenced for all three charges because two of the charges are redundant. Thus, Donahue does not face a sentence in excess of six months' imprisonment. Accordingly, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Flores, Docket No. 29,650 (N.M. 1/5/2010)
-
State of Nevada v. Dist. Ct.
...code infraction pursuant to this court's decisions in Albitre v. State, 103 Nev. 281, 738 P.2d 1307 (1987) and Donahue v. City of Sparks, 111 Nev. 1281, 903 P.2d 225 (1995). The justices' courts granted the motions. On appeal, the district courts affirmed the justices' courts' orders. The s......