You’ve been convicted after trial. Now what?

The appellate attorneys at LV Criminal Attorney have represented clients in many criminal law appeal cases in the State of Nevada.

Appeals can be raised under certain circumstances, and the time frame and procedural requirements are very strict. Most criminal defense attorneys will not do appeals because of these strict requirements as well as the advanced understanding of legal nuances that they require.  

LV Criminal Attorney has the expertise to make sure that all requirements are met and that arguments are raised on appeal to lead to the most favorable result.  The assembled team has years of experience preparing compelling briefs and participating in oral arguments to receive the best possible outcome on appeal for Appellants.

Our appellate attorneys are licensed to appear in and have represented clients in appeals in front of the Nevada Supreme Court, Nevada Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and United States Supreme Court. Our team of appellate attorneys has years of experience drafting briefs in to the Nevada Supreme Court and Nevada Court of Appeals.

Following any criminal conviction and sentencing is a scary time. This is a time when you need an attorney who is skilled in criminal appellate law. Call LV Criminal Attorney today to speak with our criminal appeal attorneys. Our attorneys have experience in criminal appellate litigation and are prepared to challenge your conviction.

Following your criminal trial and conviction, you are automatically entitled to an appeal. Your notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the judgment being appealed.[1] It is important that you contact an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options.

The appeal is different from the trial because it asks the appellate courts to review all of the errors that happened during the criminal trial. This is done in writing through written briefs. Occasionally the appellate courts ask the attorneys to have oral argument on the briefs. If the appellate court determines that any of the errors were so prejudicial that they affected the outcome of the trial, it will reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial.

It is important that you have an appeals attorney who knows what errors to look for in your trial and how to present those errors in the written briefs. It is also important that you have an appeals attorney who knows how to present an appellate argument to the appeals court. These are very different skills than at the trial level. A criminal attorney who is experienced in criminal appeals will give you the best chance at a successful outcome in your appeal.

         Call LV Criminal Attorney today to speak with our criminal appellate attorneys. Our attorneys are experienced with criminal appeals and know how to give you the representation you need.



State v. Castaneda, 245 P.3d 550, 126 Nev. 478 (Nev. 2010). In this case, my client was charged with indecent exposure under NRS 201.220(1). Prior to trial, I challenged the constitutionality of the statute, arguing that it was unconstitutionally void for vagueness and overbreadth. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The State appealed, and in a lengthy opinion before the Court En Banc, the Court held that the Statute was facially valid.

State v. Barren, 279 P.3d 182, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 31 (Nev. 2012). In this case, my client was arrested as an adult for crimes that he was alleged to have committed as a juvenile. At the time, NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) had just been enacted, which automatically divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction over the most serious of felony crimes in situations where the crimes were committed when a person was between 16 and 18 years of age, but not apprehended until they were over 21 years of age. Although not in effect at the time the crimes were alleged to have occurred, the State nevertheless used NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) to divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction over my client and to proceed directly to adult prosecution. I challenged the adult court’s jurisdiction, arguing that NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) did not apply retroactively to allow direct adult prosecution and, even if it did, it amounted to an ex post facto violation. The district court agreed and directed the justice court to dismiss. The State filed an emergency appeal, and in an important decision interpreting the newly enacted statute and juvenile court jurisdiction in the most serious of felony charges, the Court held that NRS 62B.330(3)(e)(2) properly conferred jurisdiction on the adult court.

Guitron v. State, 350 P.3d 93, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Ct. App. Nev. 2015). This was an appeal from a jury verdict finding my client guilty of multiple charges related to sexual offenses with a minor. Prior to trial, I filed a motion to admit the minor child’s independent, prior sexual knowledge, which was denied. Also, at trial, I sought to introduce an inverse jury instruction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred by denying my motion to admit the minor child’s prior sexual knowledge and erred by denying my inverse jury instruction. The case proves important in that the Court further took the opportunity to clarify the procedures that the district courts must follow in any case where a defendant is charged with a sexual offense involving a minor and the defense seeks to introduce a minor’s prior sexual knowledge as part of the defense.

Thurmond v. State, No. 61877 (Nev. 2013), Unpublished Order. This was an interlocutory emergency petition for writ of mandamus that I filed to disqualify the Clark County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting my client. One of the alleged victims in the case was a district attorney. I had moved in the district court to disqualify the DA’s Office from prosecution, but the district court denied my motion without an evidentiary hearing. Although two (2) justices agreed that the screening procedures the DA’s Office put in place to screen the alleged-victim DA from the case were sufficient, the dissenting justice concluded otherwise. The dissent concluded that my petition should have been granted and that the conflict of interest amounted to an appearance of unfairness or impropriety so great that the public trust and confidence in our criminal justice system could not be maintained without disqualification.

Hall v. State, No. 62663 (Nev. 2015), Unpublished Order. This was a death penalty appeal from a conviction and sentence of death that I orally argued before the Court En Banc.

[1]NRAP 4(b)(1). There are other situations for appeal in a criminal case that are not covered here, nor is this intended to provide legal advice on appellate deadlines. If you believe you have an issue/case to appeal or would like to discuss an appeal, you should always contact an attorney for legal advice.