# Opposition — Renard v. Nevada > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2473%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 440 U.S. 982 ## Text Soe MAR 19 1979 | MIGHABL RODAK, JR. CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1978 No. 78-1251 MICHAEL FRANK RENARD, Petitioner, —vVS.— THE STATE OF NEVADA Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION DANIEL M. SEATON, Chief Deputy District Attorney Attorney for Respondent Robert J. Miller, District Attorney H. Douglas Clark, Deputy District Attorney Clark County Courthouse 200 East Carson Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 wat IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1978 No. 78-1251 MICHAEL FRANK RENARD, Petitioner, Vv. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION The respondent, by and through Daniel M. Seaton, Chief Deputy District Attorney for Clark County, State of Nevada, respectfully requests that this Court deny the petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in the case of Michael Frank Renard v. State of Nevada, Case No. 9831, 94 Nev., Advance Opinion No. 109, 580 P.2d 470 (1978). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The transcript of the sentencing procedure on May 31, 1977, reveals that the judge was presented with a presentence report, defense witness testimony and arg- ument of defense counsel]. The State stood silent. There was no indication of any “hidden motive" in the sentencing. The defendant was placed on notice of the possibility of incarceration at the time he entered a guilty plea to the crime of ATTEMPT COERCION on March 22, 1977. At that time the deputy district attorney stated, "The Court may in fact find this defendant is an unsuitable candidate for probation..." The defendant entered his guilty plea with that knowledge. The defendant did not request reasons from the trial court with regard to sen- tencing or raise an objection for the lack of specific reasons. REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD BE DENIED 1. Neither the decision below nor the record raises any violation of due process. | The sole issue is whether due process has been violated by the trial court's failure to recite reasons for the sentence imposed. The courts have held in the absence of specific statutory directive, that, "while as a matter of public policy such a requirement might be thought desir- able, we do not find that it is constitu- tionally dictated." Walsh v. Picard, 446 F.2d 1209, 1212 (lst. Cir.)(1971); United States v. Rosner, 549 F.2d 259, 264 (2nd ir, ; United States v. Velazquez, 482 F.2d 139 (2nd Cir.)(1973). Indeed, it is apparent from peti- tioner's own reasoning that he is asking this Court to embark on a course of policy ale _—~ yy change that is not dictated by the Consti- tution. 2. There is no conflict of decisions among the various courts. The petitioner has failed to establish that there are conflicting opinions that require settling by this Court. 3. The Court below followed long established policy. "(i]t is an accepted principle that a... trial judge has wide discretion in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted person." United States v. Johnson, 507 F.2d 826, 829 (7th Cir. 1974). A number of cases have held that a sentence imposed within statutory limits is generally not subject to review. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972); United States s. See, 505 F.2d 845, 857 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub. nom Gordon v. United States, 420 U.S. 992 (1975). This Court has held that, “stare decisis is still a powerful force in [its] jurisprudence", United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515, 527 §.Ct. TI55 (1975). "One who seeks to overcome the principle of stare decisis, should be prepared to offer compelling reasons which outweigh the public interest in the stability of legal doctrine."' Ramos v. Beauregard, Inc., 423 F.2d 916, 917 (Jst Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865, 91 S.Ct. 101 (1970). It is difficult to find any compelling reasons for this Court to review a long settled policy in the sentencing structure in the appellant's petition. The appellant fn recognizes that he is asking this Court to venture into an area not dictated by existing law or the Constitution. The first paragraph of his reasons make that evident. The appellant fails to demon- strate why the issue of reasons for sentencing is ripe for adjudication. 4. The question on appeal was not preserved at the trial court level. An examination of the record fails to disclose any request for reasons or an objection for the court's lack of reasons for the sentence imposed. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted, 6 ic Sei ANLEL M. ATON Chief Deputy District Attorney Counsel for Respondent ROBERT J. MILLER District Attorney HOWARD DOUGLAS CLARK Deputy District Attorney Clark County, Nevada ee CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this 137 day of March, 1979, three copies of RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI were mailed, postage prepaid, to Patrick R. Doyle, Esq., 323 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, Counsel for the Petitioner. I further certify that all parties required to be served have been served. Kripa hy, Sect Chief Deputy District Attorney Counsel for Respondent ROBERT J. MILLER District Attorney HOWARD DOUGLAS CLARK Deputy District Attorney Clark County, Nevada --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2473%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.