Bowers (Christopher) v. State

 and/or text messages originated in Washoe County or Nevada. Bowers
waived his ability to challenge the venue by pleading guilty. See id. Even
assuming, without deciding, that proof of the situs of the crime implicates
the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and is thus not subject to
waiver by entry of the guilty plea, compare e.g., Rothchild v. State, 558 So.
2d 981, 984 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) (State must prove that felony was
committed in the state to establish subject matter jurisdiction), with State
v. Adams, 958 A.2d 295, 300 n.4 (Md. 2008) (whether an offense was
committed within the state's boundaries is a question of territorial
jurisdiction), overruled on other grounds by Unger v. State, 48 A.3d 242,
258 (Md. 2012), and State v. Crocker, 621 S.E.2d 890, 894-95 (S.C. Ct.
App. 2005) (appellant's claim that court lacked jurisdiction due to State's
failure to allege that the offense occurred in the county was challenge to
personal jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction); see
generally Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 812, 59 P.3d 463, 467 (2002)
(subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to waiver); 4 Wayne R. LaFaye,
et al., Crim. Proc. § 16.4(d) (3d ed. 2012) (lack of jurisdiction apparent on
the face of a charging document is not waivable); see also Estrada v. State,
148 S.W.3d 506, 508-09 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting appellant's claim
that court lacked jurisdiction because State did not prove that the offense
occurred within the state where appellant pleaded guilty and admitted
committing offense in state), Bowers offers no cogent argument or citation
to authority in support of his contention that jurisdiction is contingent
upon a showing that the threatening conduct originated in Washoe County
or Nevada. See NRS 171.015 (defendant is liable for punishment in
Nevada where offense commenced in another state is consummated in
Nevada); Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178, 180 (1980)
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
I Ali 4 ik?
("[F]inding of probable cause may be based on slight, even 'marginal'
evidence."); Rossana v. State, 113 Nev. 375, 383, 934 P.2d 1045, 1050
(1997) (discussing elements of aggravated stalking); see also State v.
Woolverton, 159 P.3d 985, 992-93 (Kan. 2007) (state had jurisdiction over
criminal threat perceived in that state). Bowers therefore fails to
demonstrate any error in this regard. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
' J.
Hardesty
pc
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court
Lee T. Hotchkin, Jr.
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
I lalkCititT: MUM