..

1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
-
F I LED
elecltOnicaUy
03-15-2012:08:21:48 PM
Joey Orduna HasHng.
Cletlc oIlhe Court
2829788
IN THE SECOND JUDiCIAl DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

9 ZAO-tARY BAkeR COUGHUN,
10
11
12
vs.
Appellant,
case No.: CRl1-2064
Dept No.: 10
em OF RENO, a munldpal corporation,
13
14
15
16
Respondent.
----------______________
ORDER AfFIRMING RUUNq or THI! RIINO MUNIQPAl COURI
Presently before the Court Is an Appeal from a ruling o( the Reno Munldpal Court,
17
"led by Appellant ZACHARY BAKER COUGHUN (hereafter "Appellant") on December 23,
18
2011. Following, on February 7, 2012, Appellant tiled his Opening Brief on Appeal.
19 Thereafter, on February 23, 2012, Respondent cm OF RENO (hereinafter "Respondent")
20
"led Its Answering Brie'. The matter I, now before the Court 'or Its consideration.
21 This matter comes before the Court on a criminal appeal from the Reno Munldpal
22
Court. On November 3D, 2011, Appellant was convicted of Petit Larceny, a violation ot
23 RMC 8.10.040. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Appellant tiled a Notice ot Appeal with
24 the Court.
2S
Although Appellant's arguments on appeal are unclear, Appellant raises a wide
26
variety o( issues, Including, inter aI/iT. thaI he was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to
27
Counsel, that the MuniCipal Court erred In railing to grant him a conttnuance, that the
28
'I
prosecution engaged In misconduct, that he was refused an opportunity to lesH"" on his
I ho,..". eonItt IhEa 'II llUI and correct eot:It' 01 rhe Of
Ihl 01 !ft, Reno MunJcIoaI C'xlft. ReftQ.
Newecta. .1nd rtlGI rfle cr. 01"'1 eoul! I. 11'1. oustodlul
1. I_1M "'ft:Irtud '0 P'!" .... ,ltier.'..."".,. ...
""NIt co
03087
1793_ ______ ._ _ _ ___ ~ ______ ~ .-,- ......... - ----------- ---------------
.......
'-
1 own behalf, that certain evidence should have been suppressed pursuant to the Fourth
2 Amendment of the United Slates Constitution, that hiS conviction Is not supported by
3 suffldent evidence, and that "[t}urther Improprlelles and due process delldendes"
4 occurred.
5 Unfortunately, Appellant neither supports his arguments with relevant authority nor
6 dtatfons to relevant portfons of the record. Most Importantfy, Appellant has railed to
7 provide this Court with a copy of the transcrtpt of relevant proceedings In the Reno
8 Munldpal Court. llIe Nevada Supreme Court has held that an "[ajppellant has the ultima
9 responsibility to provfde this court with 'portions of the record essentfal to detennlnatfon of
10 Issues raised In appellant's appeal: 7'1Iom4I If, State, 120 Nev. 31 n. 4, 83 P.3d 818
11 (2004) (citing NRAP 30(b)(3). Further, NRAP 28(e) provfdes that "[eJvel'f assertion In
12 briefs regarding matters In the record shall be supported by a reference to the page of the
13 transcript or appendix where the matter relied on Is to be found."
14 While Appellant did provide this Court with iI Compact Disc containing a recording 0'
IS the Munldpal Court proceedings, Appellllnt did not dte to the POrtions of the Compact Disc
16 that he 'elt supported his arguments, and It Is not the responsibility of this Court to guess
17 which portions of the Compact Disc might support Appellant's arguments. In short,
18 Appellant did not satlsf'y his responsibility to supply ilnd cite to relevant portfons of the
19 record merely by producing a Compact Disc recording of the entfre Munldpal Court
20 proceeding.
21 In light of Appellant's failure to provide this Court with an adequate appellate
22 record, and Appellant's correspondent failure to cite to such a record, this Court Is unable
2J to conduct a meaningful review 0' Appellant's appeal. Thus, Appellant has failed to meet
24 /II
25 /II
26 1/1
27 1/1
28 /II
2
03088
1794
'-.
-
1 his burden In providing an adequate appellate record, and this Court must affirm the ruling
2 0' the Reno Munldpal Court. I
3 NOW, THI!RI!FORE, IT IS HI!RI!BY ORDI!RED that the ruling 0' the Reno
4 Municipal Court Is AfFIRMED.
5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERID that this matter Is remanded back to the Reno
6 Munldpal Court 'or all further proceedings.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L8
L9
20
21
2l
23
24
25
.. "' .... -'2....,,, ... ""
P.EWOTT
DIstrict Judge
26 1 It Is..o.tn notlnlllha!, pursuant to NItS '(tJI>e lees rer transcrtpts and copies (01 municipal court
proceedings) must be paid by the party ordering them. In a cJvll case Ihe preparation 01 the transcrtpt need
27 not commence until the leeo hav" been deposited with the deputy derlo 0' the court. ACCD<dlnglV. NRS
189.030 ..... hlch requires the muniCipal court 10 transmit yarlous paPIn to the district court upon appell. doe.
28 not require IcIIon such lees have been paid. Here. it appears that Appellant never paid the requlolte
I ... to secure the tran5Cl1pUon 01 the Proceedln\lS. For this reason. the appellate record Is Incomplete
,
II
I.
. J.
03089
1795... _ ... ____ .. ___ .... __ ........... __ ... _._._4._ .. _______ ..
1
2
-
CeRnfiCATI OF MAILING
I hereby certll'y that I electronically med the foregoing with the Oertc of the Court by
3 using the ECF system served the follOwing parties electronically:
4 ZACHARY COUGHUN, ESQ. for ZACHARY COUGHUN
5 PAMELA ROBERTS, ESQ. for CITY 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

. E IHO N
Judicial AsSistant
.....
03090
1796