Ferguson (William) v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
WILLIAM EDWARD FERGUSON, No. 64704
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILED
Respondent. MAR 1 8 2016
CLIR
sv LLL
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of one count of grand larceny. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; James M. Bixler, Judge.
Appellant William Ferguson first contends that the district
court erred in not sua sponte ordering a competency evaluation. The
district court must conduct a competency hearing if there is evidence that
raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competence to stand trial.
Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 180, 660 P.2d 109, 113 (1983). We
review the district court's conduct for an abuse of discretion. Id. Ferguson
argues that a "revolving door of attorneys confirming as counsel" prior to
trial, his "demeanor and actions during trial," and a finding that he was
incompetent a month after trial constitute evidence that raised a
reasonable doubt as to his competence. First, Ferguson fails to
demonstrate how a defendant's changing of counsel implicates his
"present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding" or creates doubt as to whether "he has a rational
as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Id.(setting out the competency requirements) (quoting Dusky v. United
States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)). Second, Ferguson fails to identify any
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e
37.7717
UP4
ntb,S4;
conduct or action of his during trial that could be evidence of his
incompetence to stand trial See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748
P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant
authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be
addressed by this court."). Finally, the fact that Ferguson subsequently
was found incompetent in another, unrelated case does not of itself give
rise to a reasonable doubt as to his competence before or during trial in
the instant case.' See Fergusen v. State, 124 Nev. 795, 803 n.12, 192 P.3d
712, 718 n.12 (2008) (noting that a defendant's competence may change
during proceedings). We therefore conclude that Ferguson has failed to
demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in not sua sponte
referring him for a competency evaluation before or during trial.
Ferguson next contends that the district court erred in
denying his requested jury instructions and verdicts for the lesser-
included offenses of attempt grand larceny and petit larceny. We review
the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion or judicial error.
Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 120, 17 P.3d 998, 1000 (2001). "[A]
defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense if
there is any evidence at all, however slight," that supports that offense.
Rosas v. State, 122 Nev. 1258, 1264-65, 147 P.3d 1101, 1106 (2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). But "if the prosecution has met its
burden of proof on the greater offense and there is no evidence at the trial
tending to reduce the greater offense, an instruction on a lesser included
1 Wenote that the district court transferred Ferguson to competency
court before sentencing in this case only because questions about his
competency arose in the other case. The district court suspended further
proceedings in this case until after Ferguson was restored to competency.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
offense may properly be refused." Id. at 1265, 147 P.3d at 1106. Here,
there was overwhelming evidence that Ferguson was guilty of the greater
offense, and he fails to identify any evidence whatsoever that would tend
to reduce it. We therefore conclude that Ferguson has failed to
demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
jury instructions and verdict options for lesser-included offenses.
Having considered Ferguson's claims and finding that they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
il_tfret.41.2„ , J.
Hardesty
Saitta
J.
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Law Office of Julian Gregory, L.L.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
naafi'
(0) 1947A 94)grtrA