Mason v. State

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that, under NRS 176.035(1), a district court must pronounce the aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment when imposing consecutive sentences for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2014. The court affirmed Mason’s convictions and sentences but remanded for correction of the judgment of conviction to include the aggregate terms, nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date.

Holdings

1. When imposing consecutive sentences for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2014, the district court has a mandatory duty under NRS 176.035(1) to pronounce the aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment in the judgment of conviction.
2. The transferred-intent instruction did not constitute plain error affecting Mason's substantial rights because it did not relieve the State of its burden to prove willful use of force or violence, the jury was properly instructed on battery and willfulness, and sufficient evidence supported the conviction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NRS 176.035(1) required the district court to pronounce the aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment when imposing consecutive sentences for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2014.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury on transferred intent with respect to the battery count.

Disposition

remanded