Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-19-2024
Case Number: 85839
Judge: Egan K. Walker
Court: Second District Court, Washoe County, Nevada
Plaintiff's Attorney: Washoe County, Nevada District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Reno Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Reno, Nevada criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony involvement with two juveniles.
In 2012, law enforcement received a report of two female juveniles engaging in prostitution near a Reno motel. Police officers responded and contacted sisters F.W. (12 years old) and I.S. (14 years old). The sisters stated that they recently began spending time with Sanchez. Sanchez told I.S. that he would "help" her if she wanted to engage in prostitution, i.e., find men willing to exchange money for sexual acts with her, and Sanchez would provide transportation and protection for her. Sanchez also threatened to hurt I.S. if she did not pay Sanchez what he believed he was owed or if I.S. worked for anyone else.
I.S. stated that Sanchez arranged for her to perform sexual acts with two men at a motel a few days before the police contacted the victims. After the sexual encounters, the men paid Sanchez $80, and he gave I.S. $40. On other occasions, Sanchez drove I.S. to downtown Reno and instructed her to walk the streets and find "dates." Sanchez demanded half of the money that the clients paid I.S. in exchange for sexual acts. When officers contacted Sanchez, he admitted to having consensual sex twice with I.S. and sexual intercourse and oral sex with F.W. Sanchez also admitted he knew the girls' ages. During a police interview, F.W. confirmed the sexual encounters with Sanchez.
The State charged Sanchez with pandering a child, statutory sexual seduction (I.S. counts), and two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 (F.W. counts). Sanchez waived a preliminary hearing and pleaded guilty to all counts. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed not to pursue charges of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 related to F.W. Sanchez signed the guilty plea agreement, admitting his culpability, and admitted the factual allegations in open court during his guilty plea canvass. Sanchez also told presentencing investigators that he had sexual relationships with F.W. and I.S. And at sentencing, Sanchez admitted everything, apologized to the victims, and stated that he wanted to take responsibility for his actions.
* * *
APPELLATE PROCEDURE. APPEALABILITY. The Supreme Court of Nevada considers whether an order dismissing a petition to establish factual innocence without prejudice under NRS 34.960 is appealable and concludes that such an order is not appealable, thereby dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. The case discusses the statutory scheme for reviewing factual-innocence petitions in Nevada, emphasizing the two-tiered review process, pleading requirements under NRS 34.960, and the non-appealability of dismissals without prejudice to further petitions meeting statutory standards.
Key Phrases Appealable order. Factual innocence petition. Pleading requirements. Newly discovered evidence. Without prejudice dismissal.
In 2012, law enforcement received a report of two female juveniles engaging in prostitution near a Reno motel. Police officers responded and contacted sisters F.W. (12 years old) and I.S. (14 years old). The sisters stated that they recently began spending time with Sanchez. Sanchez told I.S. that he would "help" her if she wanted to engage in prostitution, i.e., find men willing to exchange money for sexual acts with her, and Sanchez would provide transportation and protection for her. Sanchez also threatened to hurt I.S. if she did not pay Sanchez what he believed he was owed or if I.S. worked for anyone else.
I.S. stated that Sanchez arranged for her to perform sexual acts with two men at a motel a few days before the police contacted the victims. After the sexual encounters, the men paid Sanchez $80, and he gave I.S. $40. On other occasions, Sanchez drove I.S. to downtown Reno and instructed her to walk the streets and find "dates." Sanchez demanded half of the money that the clients paid I.S. in exchange for sexual acts. When officers contacted Sanchez, he admitted to having consensual sex twice with I.S. and sexual intercourse and oral sex with F.W. Sanchez also admitted he knew the girls' ages. During a police interview, F.W. confirmed the sexual encounters with Sanchez.
The State charged Sanchez with pandering a child, statutory sexual seduction (I.S. counts), and two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 (F.W. counts). Sanchez waived a preliminary hearing and pleaded guilty to all counts. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed not to pursue charges of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 related to F.W. Sanchez signed the guilty plea agreement, admitting his culpability, and admitted the factual allegations in open court during his guilty plea canvass. Sanchez also told presentencing investigators that he had sexual relationships with F.W. and I.S. And at sentencing, Sanchez admitted everything, apologized to the victims, and stated that he wanted to take responsibility for his actions.
* * *
APPELLATE PROCEDURE. APPEALABILITY. The Supreme Court of Nevada considers whether an order dismissing a petition to establish factual innocence without prejudice under NRS 34.960 is appealable and concludes that such an order is not appealable, thereby dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. The case discusses the statutory scheme for reviewing factual-innocence petitions in Nevada, emphasizing the two-tiered review process, pleading requirements under NRS 34.960, and the non-appealability of dismissals without prejudice to further petitions meeting statutory standards.
Key Phrases Appealable order. Factual innocence petition. Pleading requirements. Newly discovered evidence. Without prejudice dismissal.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of ?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard ?
This case was heard in Second District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, NV. The presiding judge was Egan K. Walker.
Who were the attorneys in ?
Plaintiff's attorney: Washoe County, Nevada District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Reno Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was decided?
This case was decided on December 19, 2024.