Richards (John) v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOHN RICHARDS, No. 67488
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILED
Respondent. FEB 1 0 2016
TRACIE K. LNDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
ay
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury trial, of conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary while in possession of
a firearm, and robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Michael Villani, Judge.
Appellant John Richards claims that, because the jury found
him not guilty of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery,
he should not have been convicted of burglary while in possession of a
firearm. He argues that pursuant to Brooks v. State, 124 Nev. 203, 180
P.3d 657 (2008), the district court should have instructed the jury
regarding the State's burden of proving he had knowledge of' the
possession of the firearm during the burglary.
Richards acknowledges that Brooks involved the use of a
deadly weapon and the deadly weapon enhancement statute, 124 Nev. at
206-10, 180 P.3d at 659-62; see also NRS 193.165, but states that "Nile
same instructions regarding the necessity of the State to prove knowledge
of the possession of a firearm in the [b]urglary should have been given to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(111) 1947A are94
14,-01-19)7
follow the test outlined in Brooks," without providing analysis or authority
for this conclusion.' "It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant
authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be
addressed by this court." Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3,
6 (1987). As Roberts has failed to provide cogent argument supporting his
request for relief, we decline to consider this claim. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Carl E. G. Arnold
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Additionally, his argument that "Nile jury's finding(s) . . . are
inconsistent results" is equally without analysis or authority.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 0