No. 83303 

FILED 

JUN 12 201i 

DEPUTY C DIY 

DARRELL CLARK, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a 

jury verdict, of robbery, coercion, carrying a concealed weapon, prohibited 

person in possession of a firearm, two counts of burglary of a business, two 

counts of fraudulent use of a credit or debit card, four counts of theft, five 

counts of conspiracy to commit burglary, five counts of conspiracy to commit 

larceny, five counts of residential burglary, and five counts of invasion of 

the home. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, 

Judge. 

A jury found appellant Darrell Clark and a codefendant guilty 

of perpetrating a series of burglaries that involved Clark and the 

codefendant prying open hotel room doors while the guests were away and 

stealing various items, including electronics and credit cards. Clark argues 

that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the jury's 

finding of guilt for offenses related to the June 15, 2020, burglary. Clark 

contends that the State did not prove he committed the June 15 offenses 

because the physical evidence inculpated the codefendant and the victim 

only identified him with 50 percent certainty from a photo lineup. When 

1Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument 

is not warranted. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I Wit 440110, 
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, 

we consider "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 381, 

956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998). 

Here, the victim testified that when she returned to her hotel 

room, she discovered her key card did not work and heard voices coming 

from inside the room. While the victim called hotel staff on her cellphone, 

a male and female exited the room. The male pushed her against the wall, 

grabbed her by the throat, and took her cellphone before fleeing to the 

elevator. When the victim entered her room, she discovered that several 

personal items were missing. The victim identified Clark as the male 

perpetrator from a photo lineup with 50 percent certainty, and she 

identified Clark during trial as the man who held her by the throat and took 

her cellphone.2Law enforcement found the room's door had been forced 

open and discovered the codefendant's DNA at the scene. Regarding the 

other burglaries in the series, the State presented strong evidence 

connecting Clark and the codefendant as coconspirators, including 

surveillance video and phone records. Moreover, several stolen items from 

the different burglaries were found in the possession of Clark and the 

codefendant, including a credit card from the June 15 burglary. 

An in-court identification must be evaluated for credibility by 

the jury. See Steese v. State, 114 Nev. 479, 498, 960 P.2d 321, 333 (1998). 

Clark had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim about her initial 

2The victim testified that she initially did not look closely at the photo 

lineup but ultiniately recognized Clark's facial structure. 

2 
uncertainty in making the photo lineup identification. Thus, any questions 

about the victim's credibility were duly left for the jury to resolve. And we 

'must respect the exclusive province of the fact finder to determine the 

credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable 

inferences from proven facts." United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1226 

(9th Cir. 1996); see also Rose v. State, 123 Nev. 194, 202-03, 163 P.3d 408, 

414 (2007) (providing that this court will not reweigh the evidence or 

substitute its judgment for that of the jury). Considering the totality of the 

evidence, a rational juror could find that Clark conspired with the 

codefendant and burgled the victim's hotel room and robbed and coerced the 

victim. Therefore, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's 

verdicts for the seven challenged convictions. See NRS 199.480; NRS 

200.380(1); NRS 205.060(1); NRS 205.067(1); NRS 205.0832(1); NRS 

205.220(1); NRS 207.190(1). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.3 

Parraguirre 

Pickering 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Law Offices of Carl E.G. Arnold 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

3