F I L E D

Electronically
03-15-2012:06:21:48 PM
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 2829786
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
***
9 ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN,
10 Appellant,
Case No.: CRll-2064
11
vs. Dept. No.: 10
12
13 CITY OF RENO, a municipal corporation,
14 Respondent.
I
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
16
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed by Respondent CITY
17
OF RENO (hereafter "Respondent") on January 19, 2012. Following, on January 30, 2012,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHLIN (hereafter "Appellant") filed an Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss Appeal. Thereafter, on February 6, 2012, Respondent filed a Reply in Support
of Motion to Dismiss. Contemporaneously therewith, Respondent filed a Request for
Submission, thereby submitting the matter for the Court's consideration.
This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Municipal
Court. On November 30, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation of
RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Court. In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts a single argument. Namely,
Respondent argues that Appellant's appeal must be dismissed as untimely.
Pursuant to NRS 189.010, an appellant has ten days following the entry of a
judgment of conviction to file a notice of appeal. Should an appeal come outside of that
-1-
1 time period, the matter is untimely and may be dismissed by the Court. As applied to the
2 instant case, Respondent reasons that because Appellant filed his appeal more than ten
3 calendar days after the entry of judgment, Appellant's appeal is untimely. Respondent's
4 approach ignores Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), which governs the computation of
5 time. That rule provides that "[w]hen the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than
6 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and nonjudicial days shall be excluded in the
. 7 computation." NRCP 6(a). In other words, NRS 189.010's ten day rule does not refer to
8 calendar days, but is calculated based on the passage of judicial days. Thus, Appellant had
9 until December 14, 2011 to file his Notice of Appeal. Because Appellant filed his Notice of
10 Appeal on December 13, 2011, his appeal was timely and this Court will deny Respondent's
11 Motion to Dismiss.
1
12 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERBEY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to
13 Dismiss Appeal is DENIED.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this K day of March, 2012. /. 7 ~
\ ~ ~ ~
STEVEN P. E[LIOTT
District Judge
1 In his Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Appellant raises a great variety of arguments.
While the majority of these arguments are irrelevant, one bears mentioning. Specifically, Appellant argues
that the Municipal Court Judge extended the statutory deadline within which Appellant was required to file his
Appeal. Respondent counters that Appellant has not provided evidence of such an extension, and in any
event, a Municipal Court Judge lacks the authority to alter the statutory deadlines for filing an appeal. In
light of this Court's conclusion that Appellant's appeal was timely even without an extenSion, this Court finds
it unnecessary to address whether such an extension was granted or proper.
-2-
1
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by
3 using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
4 ZACHARY COUGHLIN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHLIN
5 PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for cm OF RENO
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED this 15"
day of March, M ~
HEIDI HOWDEN
Judicial Assistant
-3-