WATSON v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE AND REMANDING TO CORRECT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

Antoneel Omar Watson appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.

Watson contends body camera video and testimony of a police officer who found cocaine in Watson’s pocket is insufficient proof to show possession of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. Watson presents no relevant authority or cogent argument in support of his contention. We therefore need not address his claim. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Moreover, as a separate and independent ground to deny relief, Watson’s claim lacked merit. Officer testimony and video depicting Watson in possession of cocaine would be sufficient evidence that Watson possessed cocaine. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”); accord Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381, 956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998).

The judgment of conviction reflects that Watson’s conviction arose out of a guilty plea. However, the record before this court demonstrates he was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict. We therefore remand this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment of conviction. See NRS 176.565; Ledbetter v. State, 122 Nev. 252, 265, 129 P.3d 671, 680-81 (2006). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment of conviction.