1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CODE 2640
Richard A. Gammick
#001510
P.O. Box 30083
Reno, NV 89520-3083
(775) 328-3200
Attorney for Plaintiff


IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE.
* * *
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN,
Appellant,
Case No. CR13-1890
v.
Dept. No. D08
THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent.
____________________________________/
RESPONDENTS OPENING BRIEF

COMES NOW, the State of Nevada, by and through RICHARD A.
GAMMICK, District Attorney of Washoe County, Nevada, and AMOS STEGE,
Deputy District Attorney, and hereby submits this Opening Brief in
opposition to the Appellants appeal of the conviction in the Reno
Justice Court.
I. Issues on Appeal: After a valid Faretta canvas was
completed, whether it was error for the trial judge to deny the
Appellants oral motion for appointment of counsel made on the
morning of trial and on morning of sentencing.
///
///
F I L E D
Electronically
2014-01-30 16:00:38
Joey Orduna Hastings
Clerk of the Court
Transaction # 4283787 : jyost



2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II. Standard of Review
Under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975), a
court may grant a defendants request to represent himself if there
is a showing that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived
the right to counsel. In Arajakis, the Nevada Supreme Court
interpreted the instant issue as under Faretta. Arajakis v State,
108 Nev. 976, 843 P.2d 800 (1992). Factual findings supporting a
trial courts Faretta decision are reviewed for clear error. See,
United States v. George, 56 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 1995)
III. Statement of the Case
This is an appeal from judgment of conviction entered
November 6, 2013. On July 2, 2013 the Justice Court allowed
Appellant to release his appointed counsel. The Justice Court then
conducted a Faretta canvas and allowed Appellant to represent
himself. On July 18, 2013 a pretrial conference was held. At the
States request, the Court ordered a briefing schedule for any
motions in the case. A hearing was held on all pending motions on
September 24, 2013. The Defendant did not ask for counsel to be
appointed. All parties were reminded of the trial date. The case
proceeded to trial on October 14, 2013. After a one day trial,
Appellant was convicted of count I of the criminal complaint
(Resisting a Public Officer). He was acquitted of count II.
On the morning of trial, the Defendant orally asked for
counsel to be appointed. The Court denied Appellants motion. After
being found guilty, the Court set sentencing for November 6th. On
the morning of trial Appellant orally moved for counsel to be



3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
appointed. The Court denied the motion. The Defendant was sentenced
to 6 months jail.
The State now opposes the Appellants appeal, based on the
point and authorities outlined below.
IV. ARGUMENT
The Justice Court properly denied the Appellants last-
minute requests to appoint counsel.
The Appellant does not challenge the Faretta canvas
conducted by the Court prior to allowing him to represent himself.
He ignores the fact that a proper canvas was conducted on July 2nd.
See transcript pages 23 -29, attached as Exhibit 1.
The Court acknowledged that the Appellant has a history of
asking for an attorney midstream or in the middle of trial after
having been allowed to represent himself. See transcript p 28.
Further the Appellant knew that the Court would not appoint counsel
if it would cause a delay. See p 30, ([Y]ou will provide me counsel
provided its not so close to trial that it causes delay).
The Court set a briefing schedule and a date for oral
arguments. The record indicates that the Appellant did not seek
appointment of counsel in the briefing allotment or orally at the
motion hearing.
Defendant asked for appointment of counsel only on the day
of trial. This delay tactic was known to the Court from the
Appellants prior litigation history and acknowledged in the Faretta
canvas. The Appellant unsuccessfully made the same eleventh hour
oral motion at sentencing and the motion was denied.



4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the instant issue in
Arajakis v. State. Arajakis v State, 108 Nev. 976, 843 P.2d 800
(1992). Arajakis was allowed to represent himself at trial and was
convicted. The district court denied his last-minute request at the
sentencing hearing for a continuance to obtain counsel. The Court
held that the court acted within its discretion in denying Arajakis
motion. The Court stated that the last-minute request should be
addressed the same way as a request for self-representation. Id. at
804, 982. The question is whether the defendant has made a
voluntary, intelligent, and timely decision to change the nature of
his representation. Id. The court noted:
[A] district court should be permitted, in its
discretion, to deny a request for self-representation
on the ground of untimeliness alone, if the request is
not made within a reasonable time before commencement
of trial or hearing and there is no showing of
reasonable cause for the lateness of the request....
There need not be a specific finding of dilatory
intent, which is a separate and distinct basis for
denial of the request. Id., quoting Lyons v. State,
106 Nev. 438, 796 P.2d 210 (1990).


In this case the Appellants requests to undo his properly
executed self-represented status were untimely. They were made for
purposes of delay. The trial court did not err in denying them. The
appeal has no merit.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the State respectfully requests
that the justice courts verdict not be disturbed.
///
///



5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding
document does not contain the social security number of any person.
Dated this __30TH____ day of __JANUARY___, 2014.
RICHARD A. GAMMICK
District Attorney
Washoe County, Nevada


By_____s/s Amos Stege
AMOS STEGE
Deputy District Attorney



















6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY E-FILING
I certify that I am an employee of the Washoe County
District Attorney's Office and that, on this date, I electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the ECF
system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
following:
Marc Picker, Esq.
Alternate Public Defenders Office

DATED this 29th day of January, 2014.

/s/ Stephanie Larkin_
Stephanie Larkin


















7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS RCR2013-072675
ENTRY OF PLEA JULY 2, 2013
NUMBER OF PAGES: 43