Opinion ID: 2335942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Mandatory review of the death sentence pursuant to NRS 177.055(2)

Text: We are required by statute to review every death sentence and determine whether (1) the evidence supports the finding of an aggravating circumstance or circumstances; (2) the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor; and (3) the sentence of death is excessive, considering both the crime and the defendant. NRS 177.055(2)(c)-(e). After doing so here, we affirm the death sentence. First, we conclude that the evidence supports the finding of six aggravating circumstances: (1) Nunnery had a prior violent felony conviction for the attempted murder of Cesar Leon, [19] (2) Nunnery had a prior violent felony conviction for the attempted murder of Victor Ambriz-Nunez and/or Leobardo Ledesma, (3) Nunnery had a prior violent felony conviction for the armed robbery of Cesar Leon, (4) Nunnery had a prior violent felony conviction for the attempted robbery of Leobardo Ledesma, (5) Nunnery knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person, and (6) the murder was committed while Nunnery was engaged in the commission of a robbery. All six aggravating circumstances were based on the circumstances of the crime, to which Nunnery confessed. In particular, Nunnery admitted to robbing and shooting at Cesar Leon, trying to rob the other victims, and to murdering Saul Nunez during the robbery. And while Nunnery challenges the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstances for the attempted murder of Ambriz-Nunez and/or Ledesma and for creating a great risk of death to more than one person, we concluded above that sufficient evidence supports them. The State proved all six aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, nothing in the record demonstrates that the jury's verdict was the result of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Despite Nunnery's claims that his penalty hearing was unfair on the grounds outlined in this opinion, no error unduly prejudiced him or served to inflame the jury. Finally, we must consider whether the death sentence is excessive. In doing so, we consider[ ] only the crime and the defendant at hand, Dennis v. State, 116 Nev. 1075, 1084, 13 P.3d 434, 440 (2000), to determine whether the crime and defendant . . . [are] of the class or kind that warrants the imposition of death, id. at 1085, 13 P.3d at 440. The evidence presented at the penalty hearing revealed that in three separate incidents within a matter of weeks Nunnery murdered three people. Nunnery was shown to be a violent man with little regard for human life and without any remorse for his actions. The record demonstrates that Nunnery committed a cold-blooded and unprovoked killing and has a propensity toward violent behavior. We conclude that the death sentence in this case is not excessive.