reverse its prior decision, finding instead that appellant was "not the type
of person" who should receive the "substantial benefit" of having his
criminal records sealed due to •his other arrests and convictions. In
making this determination, the district court relied on this court's decision
in State v. Cavaricci, 108 Nev. 411, 413, 834 P.2d 406, 408 (1992) (holding
that the district court abused its discretion in sealing criminal records due
to petitioner's criminal history). This appeal followed.
After reviewing appellant's arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to seal the criminal records at issue here. See id. at 412-13, 834
P.2d at 408 (reviewing a district court decision to seal criminal records in
accordance with NRS 179.255 for an abuse of discretion). To the extent
that appellant argues that there was no proof of his arrest, that contention
is meritless because his petition in the district court, signed under penalty
of perjury, stated as much and because the documentation attached to the
petition further demonstrated that appellant was, in fact, arrested for
child abuse, neglect and endangerment. Similarly, appellant's argument
that the district court should have granted the petition as unopposed is
also without merit, as there was no opposing party to the petition and the
prosecuting attorney merely had the option, but was not required, to
present evidence and testimony in response to such a petition. See NRS
179.255(4) (stating that after receiving notice of the petition from the
court, the prosecuting attorney "may testify and present evidence"
regarding the petition).
Appellant also argues that the district court improperly
determined that he would not receive a substantial benefit from having
his records sealed. In making this argument, however, appellant
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A e
misconstrues the district court's order, as the district court actually stated
that appellant was not the type of person who should receive such a
substantial benefit based on his criminal record, not that he would not
receive a benefit if the records were sealed. 2
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
LA-er 1
Douglas
Cherry
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Clyde H. Means
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We have reviewed appellant's remaining arguments and conclude
that they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A stftp