In re P.S. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                    131 Nev., Advance Opinion
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    15
    IN THE MATTER OF P.S., A MINOR                         No. 66410
    CHILD.
    P.S.,
    Appellant,
    FILED
    vs.                                                     DEC 2 i 2015
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                   TRACE K. LINDEMAN
    Respondent.                                       CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    BY
    DEPUTY CLERK
    Appeal from a juvenile court order affirming the
    recommendation of the juvenile court master to adjudicate the amount of
    restitution appellant owed. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court
    Division, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    Jeremy T. Bosler, Public Defender, and John Reese Petty, Chief Deputy
    Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.
    Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Terrence P. McCarthy,
    District Attorney, and Shelly K. Scott, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe
    County, for Respondent.
    BEFORE SAITTA, GIBBONS and PICKERING, JJ.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A    e
    1c-3q5
    OPINION
    By the Court, GIBBONS, J.:
    In this opinion, we consider whether NRS 62B.030(4) requires
    the juvenile court to direct a hearing de novo if, after a master of the
    juvenile court provides notice of the master's recommendations, a person
    who is entitled to such notice files a timely request for a hearing de novo.
    We conclude that, under NRS 62B.030 the district court has discretion
    whether to direct a hearing de novo when one is timely requested.
    DISCUSSION
    Appellant P.S. argues that, pursuant to NRS 62B.030, a
    district court must conduct a hearing de novo after reviewing the
    recommendations of a master of the juvenile court if one is timely
    requested. We disagree.
    Standard of review
    This case raises issues of statutory interpretation, which this
    court reviews de novo. MGM Mirage v. Nev. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 
    125 Nev. 223
    , 226, 
    209 P.3d 766
    , 768 (2009). "This court has established that when
    it is presented with an issue of statutory interpretation, it should give
    effect to the statute's plain meaning." Id. at 228, 
    209 P.3d at 769
    . "Thus,
    when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, such that it is
    capable of only one meaning, this court should not construe that statute
    otherwise." Id. at 228-29, 
    209 P.3d at 769
    .
    NRS 62B.030 gives the district court discretion whether to grant a hearing
    de novo
    NRS 62B.030(4) directs the district court's review of a juvenile
    court master's recommendation. NRS 62B.030(4) states:
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    (e,
    After reviewing the recommendations of a master
    of the juvenile court and any objection to the
    master's recommendations, the juvenile court
    shall:
    (a) Approve the master's recommendations,
    in whole or in part, and order the recommended
    disposition;
    (b) Reject the master's recommendations, in
    whole or in part, and order such relief as may be
    appropriate; or
    (c) Direct a hearing de novo before the
    juvenile court if, not later than 5 days after the
    master provides notice of the master's
    recommendations, a person who is entitled to such
    notice files with the juvenile court a request for a
    hearing de novo before the juvenile court.
    (Emphasis added.)
    We conclude that based upon a plain reading, MRS 62B.030(4)
    does not require the district court to conduct a hearing de novo every time
    a party requests one. NRS 62B.030(4)'s use of the word "shall" means that
    the district court is required to choose one of the three options laid out in
    NRS 62B.030(4): (a) accept the master's recommendation in whole or in
    part, (b) reject the master's recommendation in whole or in part, or (c)
    conduct a hearing de novo if one is timely requested. As long as the
    district court chooses one of these three options, it has complied with the
    statute. See Trent v. Clark Cnty. Juvenile Court Servs., 
    88 Nev. 573
    , 577,
    
    502 P.2d 385
    , 387 (1972) (concluding that under NRS 62B.030's
    predecessor, NRS 62.090, a district court is not required to conduct a
    hearing de novo when requested under subpart (c)). Accordingly, the
    district court did not violate NRS 62B.030(4) by denying P.S.'s request for
    a hearingS de novo because MRS 62B.030(4) grants the district court
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    en
    discretion to decide whether to grant such a hearing. We therefore affirm
    the district court's order.
    We concur:
    CjaP
    Saitta
    J
    gekud
    Pickering
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A A41.094
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 66410

Filed Date: 12/24/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016