Opinion
No. 51654
11-14-2013
IN THE MATTER OF PAUL M., A MINOR, PAUL M., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a juvenile court order deeming appellant an adult sex offender for purposes of registration and community notification under the 2005 versions of NRS 62F.250 and NRS Chapter 179D. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; William O. Voy, Judge.
Shortly after the juvenile court deemed appellant to be an adult sex offender pursuant to NRS 62F.250 in April of 2008, a new statutory scheme went into effect. See 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 485, § 57, at 2780. That scheme repealed NRS 62F.250, 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 485, § 56, at 2780, and imposed mandatory sex offender registration and community notification requirements on all juveniles who were adjudicated of lewdness with a child after 1956 and were 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense. See NRS 62F.200(1)(c); NRS 179D.095(1)(b); 179D.441-.443; NRS 179D.447-.490. In State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. ___, 306 P.3d 369 (2013), this court upheld the constitutionality of the 2007 scheme as applied to juvenile offenders. This court then ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs discussing the impact of Logan D. on this appeal.
Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.
Appellant states that the issues raised in his appeal were addressed and rejected by this court in Logan D. But appellant asks this court to reconsider Logan D. because it fails to recognize the differences between juvenile and adult offenders. We decline to do so.
Because appellant was adjudicated of lewdness with a minor after 1956 and was 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense, he is subject to NRS Chapter 179D's registration and community notification requirements pursuant to the 2007 statutory scheme. See NRS 62F.200(1)(c); NRS 179D.095(1)(b); NRS 179D.441-.443; NRS 179D.447-.490; Logan D., 129 Nev. at ___, 306 P.3d at 381 (the specific provisions of NRS Chapter 179D are exceptions to the general prohibition of NRS 169.025(2)). Therefore, we
In light of this conclusion, we need not address appellant's challenges to the application of NRS 62F.250.
--------
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
_______________, J.
Gibbons
_______________, J.
Douglas
SAITTA, J., concurring:
As stated in the dissent to State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. ___, 306 P.3d 369 (2013) (Cherry, J., dissenting), I believe that retroactive application of the 2007 statutory scheme to juvenile sex offenders violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions. Therefore, I would grant appellant's request to reconsider Logan D. However, I concur in the result here because I reject appellant's retroactivity and constitutional challenges to the 2005 statutory scheme and conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or exceed its jurisdiction in applying that scheme.
_______________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. William O. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk