Lash (Christopher) v. State ( 2014 )

 NRS 48.045(2). The specific evidence at issue, however, did not exist at
the time of Lash's trial and therefore cannot form the basis for a motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See State v. Bass, 4
So. 3d 353, 357-58 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that "newly
discovered evidence must have been facts that existed at the time of trial,"
but "which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence
at the time of trial" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We
conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the
wrong reason. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341
(1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result,
although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be
affirmed on appeal."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
anot-52cf -
Parraguirre
2The verification and certificate of compliance submitted by counsel
for the State does not comply with NRAP 32(a)(8)(B), see NRAP 3C(h)(3)
(requiring fast track certificate of compliance to be substantially in the
form required by NRAP 32(a)(8)), because it does not state the number of
words in the brief. The statement that the brief "does not exceed 4,667
words or 433 lines of text" does not comply with this requirement.
Additionally, the fast track response submitted by the State improperly
contains numerous citations to the appendix filed in a different case. See
NRAP 3C(f)(1)(C). We caution counsel for the State that the failure to
comply with the rules of this court may result in the imposition of
sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (e)9
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
State Public Defender/Carson City
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ce