From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luckett v. Warden

Supreme Court of Nevada
Sep 8, 1975
539 P.2d 1219 (Nev. 1975)

Opinion

No. 8044

September 8, 1975

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Carson City; Frank B. Gregory, Judge.

Horace R. Goff, State Public Defender, and Michael Griffin, Deputy State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

Robert List, Attorney General, and Patrick B. Walsh, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.


OPINION


Frank Luckett, convicted of grand larceny and currently incarcerated under a six-year prison term, is appealing from a district court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief.

The pertinent part of the information upon which he was convicted charged that "Luckett . . . did wilfully and unlawfully steal, take and carry away personal property, to wit: negotiable gambling chips of the value of $800.00, . . ."

His only cognizable contention below, and in this appeal, is that the information is fatally defective because it included the word "negotiable," when in fact, gambling chips are not freely negotiable.

The contention is without merit. At most we deem the word "negotiable," as used in the now challenged information, to be mere surplusage. See State v. Lawry, 4 Nev. 161 (1868); Nevada v. Pierce, 8 Nev. 291 (1873). If Luckett felt the word was prejudicial, his remedy was a pretrial motion to have it stricken, pursuant to NRS 173.085. See Carson v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 357, 359, 487 P.2d 334, 335 (1971).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Luckett v. Warden

Supreme Court of Nevada
Sep 8, 1975
539 P.2d 1219 (Nev. 1975)
Case details for

Luckett v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:FRANK LUCKETT, APPELLANT, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Sep 8, 1975

Citations

539 P.2d 1219 (Nev. 1975)
539 P.2d 1219

Citing Cases

State v. Benigas

(Emphasis added.) Appellant contends the allegation that respondents acted "with the intent to steal and…

Siriani v. Sheriff

We also reject the assertion that gaming tokens are not "money, goods or property" which can be the subject…