Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that a judgment of conviction imposing restitution without specifying the amount is not a final judgment under Nevada law. Because the judgment was not final and therefore not appealable, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a judgment of conviction that imposes restitution in an uncertain amount is a final, appealable judgment under Nevada law.
- Whether the district court was required to specify the amount and terms of restitution in the judgment of conviction.
Holdings
- When a district court determines that restitution is appropriate as part of a sentence, it must set the amount and terms of restitution and include them in the judgment of conviction.
- A judgment of conviction that imposes restitution but does not specify its amount and terms is not a final judgment and is therefore not appealable.
Key quotations
“We conclude that it is not, and, as a result, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” (129 Nev. at 219)
“When the district court determines that restitution is appropriate as part of a sentence, it must include the amount and terms of the restitution in the judgment of conviction.” (129 Nev. at 221)
“that a judgment of conviction that imposes a restitution obligation but does not specify its terms is not a final judgment” (129 Nev. at 222)
Factual background
Slaatte pleaded guilty to one count of lewdness with a child under fourteen years of age. The district court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years and determined that restitution was appropriate, but did not specify the amount or terms of restitution in the judgment. Instead, it ordered Slaatte to appear after his release so the court could determine the restitution amount.
Procedural history
Slaatte pleaded guilty in the Ninth Judicial District Court of Nevada to lewdness with a child under fourteen years of age. The district court imposed a life sentence with parole eligibility after ten years and determined that restitution should be imposed, but deferred determination of the restitution amount until after Slaatte's release from prison. Slaatte filed a timely appeal, and the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.