Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COREY DOUGLAS RICHARDS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Corey Douglas Richards appeals from a “second order reinstating probation with added conditions.” Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Kimberly A. Wanker, Judge.
Richards argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it ordered him to serve a flat 364 days in jail as an added condition of his probation. Richards contends the jail term is illegal because it would require him to serve a total of 905 days (including credit for time previously served), and he would have been eligible for parole “at the maximum latest once he served 720 days” if he had served the underlying sentence.
Generally, a party cannot complain on appeal about an error “which he himself induced or provoked the court ․ to commit.” Pearson v. Pearson, 110 Nev. 293, 297, 871 P.2d 343. 345 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 52, 412 P.3d 43, 50 (2018); Breault v. State, 116 Nev. 311, 314, 996 P.2d 888, 889 (2000) (declining to interfere with the sentences imposed, despite the appellant's claim that his sentences were illegal, where the appellant agreed to the sentences imposed and waived any defects associated with his sentences). Here, Richards specifically requested at the June 8, 2023, probation violation hearing that his probation be reinstated and that the district court impose the now-contested jail term as an added condition of his probation. As such, we conclude that Richards invited any error associated with the jail term, and we decline to consider this claim on appeal.
Richards also argues that the district court's sentence violates the Separation of Powers Clause of the Nevada Constitution. Richards fails to support this claim with relevant authority or cogent argument; therefore, we also decline to consider this claim on appeal. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Accordingly, we
ORDER the second order reinstating probation with added conditions AFFIRMED.
Gibbons, C.J.
Bulla, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 86931-COA
Decided: January 25, 2024
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)