Court Opinion

ID: 9861907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:54:10.160115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:47.614162
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur and write specially to dissociate myself from the case cited by the majority, Koenig v. State, 99 Nev. 780, 672 P.2d 87, 43 (Nev.1983), with its notion that respect for the spirit of the the Constitution is all that is required in municipal court. The Constitution demands more than respect. It requires compliance.
I believe there was full compliance in this case. The State bears the burden to show a valid waiver. State v. Orr, 375 N.W.2d 171 (N.D.1985). A silent record won’t do it. Id. But, by introducing a written form, signed by the defendant and certified by the judge, that the defendant was informed of his right to counsel and his other constitutional rights and that he gave them up by pleading guilty, the burden of going forward shifted to the defendant to refute the validity of his waiver. The defendant did not testify and did not otherwise overcome the State’s proof of waiver. Therefore, in my view, the record is sufficient and there is no need to excuse or justify the state of that record by resorting to the doctrine of substantial compliance.