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.
SENA (CHRISTOPHER) v. STATE
Citation: 2022 NV 34Docket: 79036
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; May 26, 2022; Nevada; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Case number 79036 relates to a criminal appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court, titled SENA (CHRISTOPHER) VS. STATE. The case, originating from the Clark County Eighth Judicial District (C311453), has a status of "Remittitur Issued/Case Closed." The appeal was argued on November 4, 2021, and submissions were made post-oral argument. Christopher Sena, the appellant, is represented by multiple public defenders, while the State of Nevada is represented by the district attorney and the attorney general. Key docket entries include the waiver of the filing fee on June 24, 2019, and the filing of a notice of appeal on the same day. The court received an amended judgment of conviction and numerous transcript requests spanning proceedings from January 2016 to May 2019. The court granted an extension for filing transcripts, which were delivered by court reporters, and the appellant was granted additional time to file the opening brief and appendix, initially due by January 16, 2020. Official records can be obtained by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Nevada, as the online information is not deemed an official record. Appellant filed a motion on February 13, 2020, requesting an extension to file the opening brief and appendix, which was granted, setting the new deadline for April 20, 2020. A second motion for extension was filed on April 10, 2020, which was also granted, extending the deadline to May 20, 2020. On that same date, the appellant filed the opening brief and multiple volumes of the appendix (I through XXIX). The court granted a motion allowing the appellant to exceed type-volume limitations for the brief. The respondent was given until June 19, 2020, to file the answering brief. Subsequently, the respondent requested extensions multiple times, with the final deadline set for November 18, 2020, after several procedural orders granting additional time for filing and addressing type-volume limitations. On November 18, 2020, the Respondent filed an Answering Brief, which was stricken by an order on November 30, 2020, due to exceeding type-volume limitations. The Respondent's original brief contained 55,975 words, and the court mandated a revised brief not to exceed 27,000 words to be filed within 21 days. On December 21, 2020, the Respondent submitted an Amended Answering Brief, certified at 26,917 words, negating the need for a motion for excess pages. The Appellant was granted until January 20, 2021, to file a reply brief, later extended to April 5, 2021. The Appellant filed the Reply Brief on April 5, 2021, and the case was then marked for screening. Various motions and orders followed regarding the transmittal of exhibits and scheduling of oral arguments, which were set for November 4, 2021. Oral arguments occurred as scheduled, and the case was submitted for decision. On May 26, 2022, the Court issued an opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. The remittitur was issued on June 20, 2022, and subsequently filed with the District Court Clerk.