Jones (Joshua) v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOSHUA EPHRAIM JONES, No. 67976
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
FILED
APR 1 2016
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of unemployment insurance fraud, conspiracy to unlawfully
obtain or increase unemployment benefits, and obtaining money under
false pretenses. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn
Ellsworth, Judge.
Appellant Joshua Jones contends that the evidence presented
at trial was insufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for obtaining
money under false pretenses. Jones contends that separate acts may not
be aggregated under NRS 205.380 and that the State produced evidence of
separate acts involving an aggregate amount that exceeded $650, but not
of any individual act that exceeded $650. Our review of the record on
appeal, however, reveals sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378,
381,956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998).
The record shows that Jones discussed his unemployment
benefits with his then-girlfriend by phone when he was incarcerated—and
thus ineligible to receive unemployment benefits—and directed her to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(01 1947A (41.40
keep filing his unemployment-benefits claims. She then logged into the
unemployment-benefits phone system using his social security number
and PIN on a weekly basis and falsely certified his eligibility to continue
receiving benefits, received nine weekly payments totaling $1440, and
used Jones' unemployment-benefits debit card to access this money.
The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented
that Jones counseled, encouraged, hired, commanded, induced, or
otherwise procured another to obtain more than $650 by false pretenses.
See NRS 205.380(1). As Jones first raises his aggregation argument on
appeal, we will not consider his claim that the individual payments may
not be aggregated. State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291,
1293 n.3 (1989); Merica v. State, 87 Nev. 457, 462, 488 P.2d 1161, 1163-64
(1971). We therefore
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
e"—
6-3 J.
as
Cherry
Gibbofrs
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A