Reynolds v. State

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Reynolds's judgment of conviction for statutory sexual seduction and attempted luring of a child. The court held that increasing the sentence in the written judgment after the oral sentencing pronouncement did not violate Reynolds's rights to be present and represented by counsel or the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the written judgment had not yet been entered and Reynolds had not begun serving his sentence.

Holdings

1. A defendant's rights to be present and to have counsel present are not violated when, after a sentencing hearing at which the defendant participated with counsel, the judge evaluates facts already in the record without considering new evidence or argument.
2. Increasing a sentence after its oral pronouncement but before the written judgment of conviction is entered does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the defendant has not yet begun serving the sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court violated Reynolds's rights to be present and to have counsel present by increasing his sentence after the sentencing hearing, without notice and outside his presence, based solely on the existing record.
2. Whether increasing the sentence after its oral pronouncement but before entry of the written judgment of conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Disposition

affirmed