I’m confused about how someone can get a driver’s license at 16, kill someone at 17, and be sentenced to probation because he was “just a kid.” I feel like a driver’s license should wait until 18 by that logic – you don’t get two years to drive recklessly. Seems he’s been at liberty in the 3 years since it happened…I can’t begin to imagine how betrayed the victim’s family feels right now.
Growing up, I always thought judges were supposed to hold people accountable for their actions. Kinda like the scene in Good Will Hunting where the judge says “You hit a cop, you’re going in.” You just assume that there are lines you don’t cross and there are going to be consequences if you do. Things are so much different now. We used to have “three strikes and you’re out” laws. Now it’s “seven strikes and we might start to get concerned.” I’m just so disappointed with what we’re permitting these days. The POTUS has 34 felonies and is ransacking the treasury, scamming millions in pump and dumps, ICE agents executing people, kids are killing kids in the streets and getting a slap on the wrist, just seems like there’s no coming back from this.
How can you logically switch from a critic of sentencing, presumably in response to today’s spotlight of the 8th DC judiciary, to a rant about Trump? Fuzzy thinking at best, but if not, then TDS.
Can the State appeal the sentence as substantively unreasonable? That’s something that happens in fed court (albeit rarely) but I don’t know if it’s possible in Nevada courts.
It is not possible for the State to appeal the sentence. Even if the Defendant appealed and the sentence was overturned, the State would still be precluded from asking for more. Elections matter.
Guest
Anonymous
July 28, 2026 9:35 am
Yesterday the headline was about beavers. Today we have an article about Mr. Castor, which is “beaver” in Spanish and French.
One of the biggest problems (not in this case as it was the result of a jury trial and verdict ) is the DA’s office. They don’t seek treatment as a habitual criminal anymore. The attorneys there are giving cases away and too scared to go to trial. I saw a case the other day, on for sentencing where the victim testified no one contacted her about the deal reached. The DAs are liberal and lazy.
We need more judges like Johnson and Israel doing the right thing and not just going along with whatever these lazy DAs deal the case to.
I have seen so many sentencing where defendants have more than 3 prior felonies and the DA has no opposition to probation and the judges just go along with it.
Three prior felonies doesn’t mean much anymore since the defense bar successfully lobbied the legislature for new habitual offender ranges. Now five felonies is a “small habitual” and seven felonies is a “large habitual.” Even when the DAs seek habitual treatment, it’s up to the judge to impose that habitual sentence, and it’s exceedingly rare when they do.
What we’re seeing are proseuctors who take cases to trial, get guilty verdicts, pursue rational sentences, then judges who are bought and paid for by the defense bar give out probation like pancakes at church.
Question for 11:34 if you know. I remember a long time ago that the DAs used to have some “five trial rule” or something where they had to do five trials a year. I think that was under David Roger. Is that still a thing? Do the DAs have any minimum number of trials they are supposed to do? Just curious about your comment that the DAs are too scared to go to trial.
They now have a recommended 10 trials before they can get “chief” status. Which equates to two trial per year until year 5.
Also, judges are not bought and paid by the criminal defense bar. Go look at their C&Es. It’s the civil bar overwhelmingly donating to campaigns. Defense bar gives little to nothing.
And on a large habitual, judges have no discretion in imposing it. I’d like to know how many habitual filings are made by the DAs office every year. And how many defendants are eligible for such treatment. I suspect not many are filed and many are eligible. Again, lazy.
I was in court the other day and heard the DA asking for probation on defendants behalf in two different cases. I thought it was the defense attorney making the argument but then realized it was the DA. I’ve never seen such a thing where the DA is asking for probation. And one of the cases was a defendant who had a criminal record and was on probation when he committed the crime he was being sentenced for.
The judges’ C&Es show substantial gifts from several “prominent” (e.g. wealthy) criminal defense attorneys and firms. Judges also have 100% discretion on whether to impose large habitual sentences. The DA files a notice that they intend to seek it, and then the judge decides at sentencing whether to impose a habitual sentence. The DAs routinely file the notices where the defendants are eligible to be sentenced as such because providing notice is a legal requirement. I understand your positions, but you are wrong on the law and on procedure.
207.012 Habitual Felon
No discretion for judge on whether ir not to apply it. Only discretion comes in sentencing under it and even then it’s very limited. Minimum of ten years.
Mostly correct but missing context. .012 is the “new” habitually violent and can only be imposed with 2 prior qualifying violent convictions and a new conviction for a qualifying violent crime. Possible but rare. .014 is similar but for habitually fraudulent crimes, again not all fraud but if elder, vulnerable victim. Most habitually fall under .010 (which excludes most drug related felonies) and requires 7 prior felony convictions from a list of qualifying felonies (not all count) and a new felony from the list and sentencing is discretionary and the judge can dismiss the count. All of the above are for new felonies after 2020 (most of them now). We have not even begun t1o discuss the proof needed for the prior which from some jurisdictions may as well be unicorn blood it is so rare. Long and short the number of people who meet the newer, friendlier habitually criminal statutes is astonishingly small regardless of what you hear in court.
Adjudication of a defendant as a habitual criminal is “subject to the broadest kind of judicial discretion.” Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1004, 946 P.2d 148, 152 (1997). In determining if a finding of habitual criminal is proper, “this court looks to the record as a whole to determine whether the sentencing court actually exercised its discretion.” O’Neill, 123 Nev. at 16, 153 P.3d at 43 . A sentencing court meets its obligations so long as it “was not operating under a misconception of the law regarding the discretionary nature of a habitual criminal adjudication.” Id. Moreover, in considering the enhancement, the “court may consider facts such as a defendant’s criminal history, mitigation evidence, victim impact statements and the like.” Id.
The court may “dismiss a count under NRS 207.010 when the prior offenses are stale or trivial, or in other circumstances where an adjudication of habitual criminality would not serve the purposes of the statute or the interests of justice.” French v. State, 98 Nev. 235, 237, 645 P.2d 440, 441 (1982). The “habitual criminality statute exists to enable the criminal justice system to deal determinedly with career criminals who pose a serious threat to public safety.” Sessions v. State, 106 Nev. 186, 191, 789 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1990).
For what (4 topics running above and this might apply to 2 of them, maybe 3 of we are still talking pancake socials)? The change in the five trial rule? Lack of habitual criminal requests or the general way yhe D.A.’s office seems to be run these days? Fewer cases going to trial? Please unpack your comment for the jury.
Wolfson did away with the rule and COVID cemented it all. They’ve never recovered from it. Add to that Public Defenders who are aggressive and receive better training and mentorship.
I mean it’s kind of an arbitrary rule and could force people to try cases that shouldn’t be tried just to hit your metric wasting court resources. The standard should be something like “tried every case during the year directed to by department chief” or something. Put the decision to try in the hands of a disinterested supervisor and reward the dda for doing what they’re supposed to.
I’m confused about how someone can get a driver’s license at 16, kill someone at 17, and be sentenced to probation because he was “just a kid.” I feel like a driver’s license should wait until 18 by that logic – you don’t get two years to drive recklessly. Seems he’s been at liberty in the 3 years since it happened…I can’t begin to imagine how betrayed the victim’s family feels right now.
They feel like the justice system let them down. Because it did.
Growing up, I always thought judges were supposed to hold people accountable for their actions. Kinda like the scene in Good Will Hunting where the judge says “You hit a cop, you’re going in.” You just assume that there are lines you don’t cross and there are going to be consequences if you do. Things are so much different now. We used to have “three strikes and you’re out” laws. Now it’s “seven strikes and we might start to get concerned.” I’m just so disappointed with what we’re permitting these days. The POTUS has 34 felonies and is ransacking the treasury, scamming millions in pump and dumps, ICE agents executing people, kids are killing kids in the streets and getting a slap on the wrist, just seems like there’s no coming back from this.
How can you logically switch from a critic of sentencing, presumably in response to today’s spotlight of the 8th DC judiciary, to a rant about Trump? Fuzzy thinking at best, but if not, then TDS.
Can the State appeal the sentence as substantively unreasonable? That’s something that happens in fed court (albeit rarely) but I don’t know if it’s possible in Nevada courts.
It is not possible for the State to appeal the sentence. Even if the Defendant appealed and the sentence was overturned, the State would still be precluded from asking for more. Elections matter.
Yesterday the headline was about beavers. Today we have an article about Mr. Castor, which is “beaver” in Spanish and French.
The Judge’s Jorder: “It’s Joever.”
Fixed jit. Thanks.
One of the biggest problems (not in this case as it was the result of a jury trial and verdict ) is the DA’s office. They don’t seek treatment as a habitual criminal anymore. The attorneys there are giving cases away and too scared to go to trial. I saw a case the other day, on for sentencing where the victim testified no one contacted her about the deal reached. The DAs are liberal and lazy.
We need more judges like Johnson and Israel doing the right thing and not just going along with whatever these lazy DAs deal the case to.
I have seen so many sentencing where defendants have more than 3 prior felonies and the DA has no opposition to probation and the judges just go along with it.
Three prior felonies doesn’t mean much anymore since the defense bar successfully lobbied the legislature for new habitual offender ranges. Now five felonies is a “small habitual” and seven felonies is a “large habitual.” Even when the DAs seek habitual treatment, it’s up to the judge to impose that habitual sentence, and it’s exceedingly rare when they do.
What we’re seeing are proseuctors who take cases to trial, get guilty verdicts, pursue rational sentences, then judges who are bought and paid for by the defense bar give out probation like pancakes at church.
Minor question – I must be going to the wrong church. I would very much enjoy free pancakes. Where can I find a church that gives out pancakes?
Whoa, hold on. Do some churches not do pancakes?
I’m Jewish. We do latkes.
Latkes would be acceptable. We get nothing. And once a month, we can’t even bring snacks from home.
Not even the Cheerio bag? IYKYK
Question for 11:34 if you know. I remember a long time ago that the DAs used to have some “five trial rule” or something where they had to do five trials a year. I think that was under David Roger. Is that still a thing? Do the DAs have any minimum number of trials they are supposed to do? Just curious about your comment that the DAs are too scared to go to trial.
They now have a recommended 10 trials before they can get “chief” status. Which equates to two trial per year until year 5.
Also, judges are not bought and paid by the criminal defense bar. Go look at their C&Es. It’s the civil bar overwhelmingly donating to campaigns. Defense bar gives little to nothing.
And on a large habitual, judges have no discretion in imposing it. I’d like to know how many habitual filings are made by the DAs office every year. And how many defendants are eligible for such treatment. I suspect not many are filed and many are eligible. Again, lazy.
I was in court the other day and heard the DA asking for probation on defendants behalf in two different cases. I thought it was the defense attorney making the argument but then realized it was the DA. I’ve never seen such a thing where the DA is asking for probation. And one of the cases was a defendant who had a criminal record and was on probation when he committed the crime he was being sentenced for.
The judges’ C&Es show substantial gifts from several “prominent” (e.g. wealthy) criminal defense attorneys and firms. Judges also have 100% discretion on whether to impose large habitual sentences. The DA files a notice that they intend to seek it, and then the judge decides at sentencing whether to impose a habitual sentence. The DAs routinely file the notices where the defendants are eligible to be sentenced as such because providing notice is a legal requirement. I understand your positions, but you are wrong on the law and on procedure.
207.012 Habitual Felon
No discretion for judge on whether ir not to apply it. Only discretion comes in sentencing under it and even then it’s very limited. Minimum of ten years.
Also no discretion for habitual under .014
Mostly correct but missing context. .012 is the “new” habitually violent and can only be imposed with 2 prior qualifying violent convictions and a new conviction for a qualifying violent crime. Possible but rare. .014 is similar but for habitually fraudulent crimes, again not all fraud but if elder, vulnerable victim. Most habitually fall under .010 (which excludes most drug related felonies) and requires 7 prior felony convictions from a list of qualifying felonies (not all count) and a new felony from the list and sentencing is discretionary and the judge can dismiss the count. All of the above are for new felonies after 2020 (most of them now). We have not even begun t1o discuss the proof needed for the prior which from some jurisdictions may as well be unicorn blood it is so rare. Long and short the number of people who meet the newer, friendlier habitually criminal statutes is astonishingly small regardless of what you hear in court.
Adjudication of a defendant as a habitual criminal is “subject to the broadest kind of judicial discretion.” Tanksley v. State, 113 Nev. 997, 1004, 946 P.2d 148, 152 (1997). In determining if a finding of habitual criminal is proper, “this court looks to the record as a whole to determine whether the sentencing court actually exercised its discretion.” O’Neill, 123 Nev. at 16, 153 P.3d at 43 . A sentencing court meets its obligations so long as it “was not operating under a misconception of the law regarding the discretionary nature of a habitual criminal adjudication.” Id. Moreover, in considering the enhancement, the “court may consider facts such as a defendant’s criminal history, mitigation evidence, victim impact statements and the like.” Id.
The court may “dismiss a count under NRS 207.010 when the prior offenses are stale or trivial, or in other circumstances where an adjudication of habitual criminality would not serve the purposes of the statute or the interests of justice.” French v. State, 98 Nev. 235, 237, 645 P.2d 440, 441 (1982). The “habitual criminality statute exists to enable the criminal justice system to deal determinedly with career criminals who pose a serious threat to public safety.” Sessions v. State, 106 Nev. 186, 191, 789 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1990).
This topic has been explored previously in the blawg, but I can’t remember when. A few months back, I believe. Maybe Law Dawg can point you to it.
Reason many prosecutors disliked David Rogers.
Wolfson or division heads?
For what (4 topics running above and this might apply to 2 of them, maybe 3 of we are still talking pancake socials)? The change in the five trial rule? Lack of habitual criminal requests or the general way yhe D.A.’s office seems to be run these days? Fewer cases going to trial? Please unpack your comment for the jury.
Wolfson did away with the rule and COVID cemented it all. They’ve never recovered from it. Add to that Public Defenders who are aggressive and receive better training and mentorship.
The topic referenced was the topic immediately above the comment about the topic referenced.
I mean it’s kind of an arbitrary rule and could force people to try cases that shouldn’t be tried just to hit your metric wasting court resources. The standard should be something like “tried every case during the year directed to by department chief” or something. Put the decision to try in the hands of a disinterested supervisor and reward the dda for doing what they’re supposed to.