RAMIREZ DE LA TORRE v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ramirez-De La Torre argues the district court erred by denying his pretrial motion to dismiss the charges against him. This court reviews a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss charges for an abuse of discretion. Hill v. State, 124 Nev. 546, 550, 188 P.3d 51, 54 (2008).

In his motion, Ramirez-De La Torre claimed the charges against him should be dismissed because his due process rights would be violated since he would be unable to present a duress defense at trial based on his fear of the Mexican cartel he worked for. The district court denied his motion stating,

Hector has been provided all process he is due. This process does not include insuring his safety to the degree he feels is necessary for him to put on a particular defense. Hector has provided no cogent argument or authority for the proposition that he is entitled to the dismissal of the charges against him because he fears suffering death or bodily harm if he presses the defense permitted by NRS 194.010(8).

On appeal, Ramirez-De La Torre admits he did not provide the district court with details of any specific threats to support his claim that he acted in duress or that he was prevented from presenting that defense at trial based on actual threats. Further, Ramirez-De La Torre did not cite to any case law in his motion to support his claim that alleged threats from actors outside of the judicial system would warrant dismissal of the charges.¹ Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss the charges. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On appeal, Ramirez-De La Torre cites to cases that deal with third parties—the press or a public mob—interfering with the due process rights of a defendant during trial. See Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966); Moore v, Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923). Ramirez-De La Torre did not cite to these cases or make argument relating to them below in support of his motion to dismiss. Therefore, we need not consider them on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 99 P.3d 1263, 1276 (1999). We note, however, that the remedy in those cases was not dismissal of the charges; rather, the remedy was to retry the defendant in a way that protected the defendant's due process rights. Rideau, 373 U.S. at 727; Estes, 381 U.S. at 552, Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 363; Moore, 261 U.S. at 92.