Court Opinion

ID: 9586831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:15:41.829181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:53.639560
License: Public Domain

Mowbray, J.,
with whom Young, C. J., agrees, dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent.
The bottom line issue in this appeal is whether Nevada’s anti-cheating statute, NRS 465.015,1 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to slot machine manipulation commonly called “cheating by handle popping.” My learned brethren of the majority have held the statute constitutionally infirm because it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by statute; or that a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence would not understand that slot machine handle popping was proscribed. I disagree.
It is difficult to draft a definition to cover all cases of cheating in the gaming industry. The legislature in its wisdom has come forward with the best possible definition that covers the problem, a definition that can be understood by those who wish to understand it.
NRS 465.015 is not a trap for the unwary, uninitiated novice who seeks to play the slots. I do not believe it is necessary at this juncture to post in blueprint detail in and about and around the slot machines warnings to the uninformed neophytes how to pull the handle of a slot machine. However, the professional “popper,” as in the instant case, comes to the casino well trained in how to jerk, wrench, wrack and otherwise abuse the slot machines in order to alter the “selection of the criteria” proscribed in NRS 465.015.2
*325I conclude that people of ordinary intelligence would understand that a method of play which permits only one reel of a slot machine to spin as the “popper” does alter the selection of criteria which determines the result of the game. Therefore, I would hold NRS 465.015 constitutional in the instant case.
Lyons was charged with (1) cheating at gambling, (2) conspiracy to cheat at gambling, and (3) being an habitual criminal. After his preliminary hearing, Lyons assented to a plea bargain that allowed him to enter an Alford plea to the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. All remaining charges were dropped by the State.
It is my opinion that Lyons was dealt with lightly. He should have been held to the original charges. He is an habitual criminal and deserves to be behind bars.
Lyons now seeks reversal of the one charge to which he pleaded guilty: obtaining money under false pretenses.
The record shows that Lyons made a knowing and intelligent choice when he pleaded guilty to obtaining money under false pretenses in order to avoid the possibility of a harsher penalty. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970); Tiger v. State, 98 Nev. 555, 654 P.2d 1031 (1982). Lyons faced one to ten years imprisonment for the cheating at gambling offense, and either life with or without the possibility of parole on the habitual criminal charge. See NRS 207.010(2); NRS 465.088(1)(b). In return for pleading guilty to the false pretense offense, the State of Nevada dropped the cheating and habitual criminal charge. Lyons received a five year sentence. Because Lyons knowingly and willingly made his bargain and received the benefit therefrom, I would not reverse. Therefore, I would affirm Lyons’ judgment of conviction.

 NRS 465.015, provides in relevant part:
1. “Cheat” means to alter the selection of criteria which determine:
(a) The result of a game; or
(b) The amount of frequency of payment in a game.

 Mr. Lyons, the appellant, has incurred at least seven arrests in Nevada and one arrest in New Jersey for slot machine cheating. He was indicted by a grand jury in Clark County, Nevada for (1) racketeering, (2) conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamines, (3) possession of ephedrine for sale, (4) attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, (5) trafficking in methamphetamine, and (6) possession of cocaine.
The Nevada Gaming Commission has entered Mr. Lyons’ name in their *325“Black Book” excluding him from licensed gaming establishments in the State of Nevada. The Commission noted therein that “[o]ver the past 35 years there have been few time periods when Lyons was not either a fugitive from justice, facing criminal prosecution, or incarcerated in a correctional facility. He has been arrested in excess of thirty (30) times, and has numerous felony and misdemeanor convictions.”