Court Opinion

ID: 9631768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:49:39.870506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:01.049479
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
concurring:
Seemingly, absent waiver of the error, Justice Mowbray would void appellant’s felony convictions because the prosecutor “erred” in failing to be sworn when asking a continuance. Like Justice Zenoff, I cannot agree that without a “waiver” appellant should go free because of the prosecutor’s unintentional, nonprejudicial, technical “error.” Also, Justice Mow-bray suggests one hour is insufficient time to comply with the provisions of DCR 21. I hold a higher view of the prosecutor’s capacity.
Obviously, the fundamental message of the instant case could be conveyed with greater clarity, reduced printing cost, and less confusion to the bench and Bar, by affirming appellant’s convictions in a brief “per curiam” opinion predicated on Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 420 P.2d 251 (1966).1 In *51such a case, so far as I can perceive, a protracted “authored” opinion serves no public purpose.

Three sentences would be ample, e.g.:
“PER CURIAM:
“Convicted of attempted murder and of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, appellant contends the district court erred in granting the prosecutor’s oral motion for continuance, made on the morning appellant originally was to be tried. See: DCR 21.
“Although appellant challenged the continuance by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he did not attempt to perfect an appeal from the *51district court’s order denying habeas relief, before proceeding to trial. Thus, appellant waived any impropriety in the court’s order that granted the continuance. Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 420 P.2d 251 (1966).”