Opinion
No. 52402
11-14-2013
IN THE MATTER OF RONALD G., A MINOR, RONALD G., 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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.
Although the juvenile court entered the challenged order on August 26, 2008, it proceeded under the 2005 version of the statutory scheme after declaring the 2007 version unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. In State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. ___, 306 P.3d 369 (2013), this court overruled the juvenile court and 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.
The juvenile court erred by deeming appellant an adult sex offender for purposes of registration and community notification pursuant to NRS 62F.250 because that statute was repealed by the 2007 statutory scheme. 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 485, §§ 56-57, at 2780 (repeal of NRS 62F.250 effective July 1, 2008). Nevertheless, because the 2007 scheme applies retroactively to all juveniles who, like appellant, were adjudicated of lewdness with a minor after 1956 and were 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense, NRS 62F.200(1)(c); NRS 179D.035; NRS 179D.095(1)(b); NRS 179D.441-.443, .447-90; 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)), appellant is subject to NRS Chapter 179D's registration and community notification requirements. Therefore, the juvenile court reached the correct result by requiring appellant to submit to the registration and community notification requirements of NRS Chapter 179D, see In re George J., 128 Nev. ___, ___, 279 P.3d 187, 191 (2012) (this court will affirm the decision of the juvenile court if it reaches the correct result for the incorrect reason), and we
In light of this conclusion, we need not address appellant's challenges relating to the application of NRS 62F.250.
Appellant was adjudicated of three counts of lewdness with a minor under 14. He was 14 years old at the time of one offense, and either 13 or 14 years old at the time of the other two offenses.
--------
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
_________________, J
Gibbons
_________________, J
Douglas
SAITTA, J., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because, 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. Further, as the State concedes, the juvenile court erroneously applied the 2005 scheme here because it conducted the hearing pursuant to NRS 62F.250 years before appellant's 21st birthday. Accordingly, I would reverse the juvenile court's order.
_________________, 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