Jack (Hanley) v. State ( 2015 )

 unambiguous). Jack implicitly concedes that the statute is unambiguous
but argues that it would lead to an absurd result because the purpose of
the statute is to protect the public via supervision. Jack does not explain
how his desired interpretation of NRS 213.1243(8) to limit the State to
pursue only one charge for all violations of a single lifetime supervision
agreement achieves the legislative purpose any more than following the
plain language of the statute. Jack also looks to this court's statement in
Palmer v. State that violators "risk conviction of an additional felony and
the imposition of an additional prison term." 118 Nev. 823, 830, 59 P.3d
1192, 1196 (2002) (emphasis added). Jack takes Palmer's language out of
context. That case did not hold that the State could obtain only a single
conviction for multiple violations of a lifetime supervision agreement, but
rather contrasted the consequences of violating lifetime supervision
conditions with those of violating parole conditions, which do not
necessarily result in a new conviction or term of imprisonment.
Second, Jack argues that the district court erred in denying a
proposed defense instruction that financial inability is a defense to the
charge that was based on his failure to pay fees. Jack was entitled to a
jury instruction on his theory of defense so long as there was some
evidence to support the theory. See Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258, 1262,
147 P.3d 1101, 1104 (2006). However, Jack has failed to provide this court
with the trial transcripts to demonstrate what his theory of defense was at
trial or what evidence supported it. See NRAP 10(b)(1) (providing that
appendices must include "the portions of the trial court record to be used
on appeal, including all transcripts necessary to the Supreme Court's
review"); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The
burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant."). We
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ma(01944
therefore conclude that Jack has failed to demonstrate that the district
court erred in denying his proposed jury instruction. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
Picker
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Humboldt County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
Humboldt County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A oe.