Norwood v. State
| Decision Date | 30 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 25820,25820 |
| Citation | 915 P.2d 277,112 Nev. 438 |
| Parties | Carlos NORWOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count each of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, burglary, and battery. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; James Stone, Judge.
Michael R. Specchio, Public Defender and John Reese Petty, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney and Terrence P. McCarthy, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.
Appellant Carlos Norwood broke into an apartment occupied by two men, hit one victim, Donald Smith, on the head to subdue him, and took Smith's money from his pocket. Norwood then went into the bedroom and stole Smith's gun. One of Norwood's accomplices shot the other victim, Paul Rivera, in the shoulder. A jury convicted Norwood of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, burglary, and battery.
At Norwood's sentencing hearing, the State and defense counsel agreed that Norwood should receive a sentence of seven years for the robbery plus seven years for the deadly weapon enhancement. The Parole and Probation Department recommended a sentence of ten plus ten years. At the sentencing hearing, the district judge made an unexpected and unsubstantiated assertion which appears to have affected the sentence, that Norwood is a Crips gang leader. The district court then proceeded to sentence Norwood to ten plus ten years for the robbery with use of a deadly weapon count. The district court also imposed restitution in the amount of $475.67.
On appeal, Norwood argues that the district court erred because the judge relied upon a belief regarding Norwood's gang membership in sentencing him when there was no evidence introduced regarding his gang membership. We agree.
At Norwood's sentencing hearing, the district court unexpectedly stated the following to the defendant:
I don't believe for one minute you have any intention of changing association of people you associate with or your patterns of association once you are released.
I know you are a member of the Krips [sic]--not a member, but a leader of the Krips [sic]. I presume that everyone thinks I am stupid or anyone sitting up here is stupid and we don't know what is going on out in the real world. Well, we do.
....
I'm not going to follow the recommendation. I want to be tougher on you than what the State is recommending to me.
I don't have any choice but to do this, I don't think, because I think somewhere along the line, we have to get a message not just to you, but to anybody like you. There are a hundred kids out there running around looking to see what is going to happen to you. Well, it's not going to be pleasant.
Immediately following these comments, the district court announced the sentence: ten years plus ten years for robbery with use of a deadly weapon; seven years for the burglary count to run concurrently with the robbery sentence and $2000 as a fine; and six years for the battery count.
The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence, and that determination will not be overruled absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). A sentencing court is privileged to consider facts and circumstances which would clearly not be admissible at trial. Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 93-94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). In Silks, this court further held:
So long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence, this court will refrain from interfering with the sentence imposed.
Here, the district court made a declaration that Norwood is a gang leader, not with reliance on highly dubious or inflammatory evidence, but without reliance on any supporting evidence whatsoever. The trial transcript indicates that gang affiliation was not at issue, and there was no reference to gangs at trial. It is clear from the record that the district court's accusation resulted in prejudice to Norwood in that he received a greater sentence of imprisonment for robbery than the seven-year sentence recommended by the State. Although ten years is within the statutory range for robbery under NRS 200.380 1 and the Parole and Probation Department recommended a ten-year sentence for the robbery count, the district judge's statements in context demonstrate that his decision was infected by his beliefs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contreras-Armas v. Garrett
... ... Contreras-Armas ... filed a post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus in ... state court. ( See ECF No. 41-18 at 2.) The state ... court granted Contreras-Armas' direct appeal deprivation ... claim but denied his ... evidence that may not otherwise be admissible at trial in ... determining an appropriate sentence. Norwood v ... State , 112 Nev. 438, 440, 915 P.2d 277, 278 (1996). This ... includes a defendant's juvenile record, see Thomas v ... ...
-
Coots v. State
...would clearly not be admissible at trial.’ “ Todd v. State, 113 Nev. 18, 25, 931 P.2d 721, 725 (1997) (quoting Norwood v. State, 112 Nev. 438, 440, 915 P.2d 277, 278 (1996) ). However, “the district court must refrain from punishing a defendant for prior uncharged crimes. Consideration of t......
-
Christensen v. Baca, 3:14-cv-00157-RCJ-VPC
...to Nevada Supreme Court cases Denson v. State, 915 P.2d 284 (Nev. 1996), Silks v. State, 545 P.2d 1159 (Nev. 1976), and Norwood v. State, 915 P.2d 277 (Nev. 1996). The Denson Court, in addition to citing to its own precedents on the question, also cited to the Supreme Court's decision in Wi......
-
Todd v. State
...court is privileged to consider facts and circumstances which would clearly not be admissible at trial." Norwood v. State, 112 Nev. 438, 440, 915 P.2d 277, 278 (1996) (citations omitted). [s]o long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or a......