Jones now appeals and raises the following issues: (1) whether
the district court abused its discretion by admitting the abstract of
judgment as evidence of his prior convictions, and (2) whether there was
sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for failure to register as a sex
offender.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an abstract of
judgment as evidence of Jones's prior convictions
"We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence for an abuse of discretion." Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267,
182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008). "The district court's exercise of discretion will
not be disturbed absent a showing of palpable abuse. Las Vegas Metro.
Police•Dep't v. Yeghiazarian, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, 312 P.3d 503, 507
(2013) (internal quotations omitted). "This court reviews questions of
statutory interpretation de novo." Blackburn v. State, 129 Nev., Adv. Op.
8, 294 P.3d 422, 425 (2013).
Nevada law does not require a certified copy of a judgment of
conviction in order to establish the existence of a defendant's prior
conviction
NRS Chapter 179D regulates the registration of convicted sex
offenders. See NRS 179D.441-.550. NRS 179D.460(1)-(2) requires a
person who has been convicted of a sexual offense to register with a local
law enforcement agency when that person has been present in a Nevada
county or municipality for 48 hours. Failure to register if required to do so
is a category D felony. NRS 179D.550(1)(d). NRS Chapter 179D does not
identify the type of evidence that is necessary to establish a defendant's
prior conviction for a sexual offense.
This court has held that documentation other than a certified
copy of a judgment of conviction can be used to establish the existence of a
prior conviction. In Pettipas v. State, this court considered whether a
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A e
statute providing for an enhanced sentence where a defendant has a prior
related conviction required proof by certified copy of the written judgment
of conviction. 106 Nev. 377, 379, 794 P.2d 705, 706 (1990). The defendant
was a motorist convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Id. at
378, 794 P.2d at 705. In enhancing the conviction to a felony in light of
two previous convictions for misdemeanor DUIs, the district court did not
rely on certified copies of judgments of conviction. Id. at 379, 794 P.2d at
706. Instead, it relied on "certified copies of docket sheets and other
documents from the courts in which the convictions were entered." Id.
Because the statute at issue "merely require[d] that a prior offense be
evidenced by a conviction," the Pettipas court held that the prior conviction
could be' established by evidence other than a certified copy of a judgment
of conviction. Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also English v. State,
116 Nev. 828, 835-36, 9 P.3d 60, 64 (2000) (holding that documents
including a "criminal complaint, a signed waiver of rights form, and two
pages of handwritten notes" were sufficient evidence of defendant's prior
conviction); Isom v. State, 105 Nev. 391, 394, 776 P.2d 543, 546 (1989)
(holding that documents including defendant's pleadings of nobo
contendere to a DUI and of guilty to another DUI, along with the
complaint, were sufficient to establish prior convictions).
When using a prior conviction to seek an enhanced sentence,
"the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the
person; and (2) the conviction of prior felonies." Carr v. State, 96 Nev. 936,
939, 620 P.2d 869, 871 (1980); see also Howard v. State, 83 Nev. 53, 57,
422 P.2d 548, 550 (1967) (same); Hollander v. State, 82 Nev. 345, 349-50,
418 P.2d 802, 804 (1966) (holding that the State must prove existence of
prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt). This burden is identical to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 19474 400
the State's burden to prove the existence of a prior conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt when the prior conviction is an element of the charged
crime. See Brown v. State, 114 Nev. 1118, 1126, 967 P.2d 1126, 1131
(1998) (observing that "the State must generally introduce evidence of a
defendant's prior felony convictions in order to establish the elements of a
[crime] beyond a reasonable doubt"). Thus, Nevada caselaw regarding the
type of evidence required to establish a prior conviction in the sentence
enhancement context is applicable to the issue of the type of evidence
required to establish a prior conviction as an element of a crime.
Here, the district court's decision to admit the abstract of
judgment as evidence of Jones's prior convictions was consistent with
Nevada caselaw. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting the abstract of judgment as evidence of Jones's prior
convictions.
There was sufficient evidence to support Jones's conviction
In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the
question is not "whether this court is convinced of the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the jury, acting reasonably, could
be convinced to that certitude by evidence it had a right to [consider]."
Edwards v. State, 90 Nev. 255, 258-59, 524 P.2d 328, 331 (1974). "[A]
reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial
court, regardless [of] whether that evidence was admitted erroneously."
Stephans v. State, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 65, 262 P.3d 727, 734 (2011)
(emphasis omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
The crime of failure to register as a sex offender while present
in Nevada has three elements: (1) the defendant has previously been
convicted of a sexual offense, (2) the defendant has been present in a
Nevada county or municipality for 48 hours, and (3) the defendant has not
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A 0
registered with a local law enforcement agency. NRS 179D.460(1)-(2); see
NRS 179D.550(1)(a) (criminalizing the failure to register).
The State proffered multiple witnesses and documents to
identify that Jones was a convicted sex offender, that he was in Reno for at
least 48 hours, and that he did not register with the Reno Police
Department. Because the State proffered evidence to establish each
element of the crime of failure to register as a sex offender, we conclude
that there was sufficient evidence to support Jones's conviction.
Therefore, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
J.
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A e