Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Reynolds v. State
Citation: 430 P.3d 530Docket: No. 75716
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; November 14, 2018; Nevada; State Supreme Court
An appeal was filed by Scott Alan Reynolds against his conviction for statutory sexual seduction and attempted luring of a child. The appeal contests the district court's decision to impose a sentence of 20 to 50 months, which exceeded the orally pronounced sentence of 12 to 34 months. Reynolds argues that this sentence increase violated his rights to be present and have counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The court found no error in the district court's actions. Although Reynolds was present during the sentencing hearing with legal counsel, the court noted that the judge's subsequent review of facts did not constitute a critical stage requiring Reynolds' presence, as no new evidence or arguments were considered. Relevant case law supports that a defendant's presence is only necessary when their absence would hinder a fair hearing. Reynolds also claimed a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause due to the increased sentence. However, the court clarified that a defendant begins serving their sentence only once the judgment of conviction is entered by the clerk. Since the written judgment had not yet been entered when the sentence was modified, the district court retained jurisdiction to change the sentence without violating Double Jeopardy protections. Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction, determining that Reynolds' rights were not violated, and concluded that oral argument for the appeal was unnecessary.