Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mendoza-Lobos v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 2009No. 52110Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Douglas, J.,

with whom Parraguirre and Pickering, JJ., agree, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the portion of NRS 193.165(1) requiring the district courts to consider certain enumerated factors when imposing a sentence for a deadly weapon enhancement does not run afoul of the separation-of-powers doctrine. I also agree with the result reached. However, I disagree with my colleagues’ conclusion that NRS 193.165(1) is ambiguous.

The majority concludes that the language of NRS 193.165(1) is ambiguous and thus looks to its legislative history to determine its…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Silks v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Rosky v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. CatanioNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Blume v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Culverson v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 1979

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API