Opinion
81476
09-16-2021
JAMES THEODORE SHARKEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
James Theodore Sharkey Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
James Theodore Sharkey Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Hardesty, C.J.
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying appellant's motion for a new trial. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3), (g); see also NRAP 31(d)(1); Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
On March 16, 2020, appellant filed a motion for a new trial, a motion for discovery, and a motion for forensic evaluation of newly discovered evidence. Specifically, appellant complained that although he was given paper photographs of the victim's injuries, he was not given digital copies or an enlarged photograph of the victim's injuries that the State presented during the trial. The district court summarily denied the motions, noting that Sharkey had not presented any newly discovered.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. See Sanborn v. State, 107 Nev. 399, 406, 812 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1991) ("The grant or denial of a new trial on [the ground of newly discovered evidence] is within the trial court's, discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent its abuse."). Appellant J did not present any newly discovered evidence, and thus, a motion for a new trial was properly denied. See MRS 176.515(1) (acknowledging a motion for new trial may be granted on basis of newly discovered evidence); Sanborn, 107 Nev. at 406, 812 P.2d at 1284 (setting forth requirements for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence). Further, to the extent that appellant sought a new trial on some other ground, the motion was filed too late. NRS 176.515(4). Appellant's motions for discovery and forensic review were properly denied as the motion for a new trial was frivolous, and appellant did not identify any statutory authority requiring discovery or forensic review of evidence in proceedings on a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
Stiglich, Gibbons Judges
Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge