Preview:

279 P.3d 182, 183 (2012). Here, the record indicates that appellant was 17 when he committed the offense on July 1, 2001, and 21 or 22 years old when DNA evidence linked him to the offense in 2005. The State filed a complaint charging him with sexual assault on October 28, 2009. Under

Barren, appellant fell under the jurisdiction of the district court, not the
juvenile court, in his prosecution. Appellant has not persuaded us to revisit Barren based on other decisions by this court or any other reason he advances. Appellant also argues that his prosecution under NRS 62B.330 constitutes an ex post facto violation because the statute "serve[d] to revive a practically barred prosecution, even though no action was filed during the relevant time." In this, he argues that there was a substantial period of time where he could not be prosecuted because no court would have had jurisdiction over him for the offense and that it was only the advent of the 2009 amendment to NRS 62B.330 that allowed his prosecution to proceed. As we stated in Barren, "some court always has jurisdiction over a criminal defendant." Id. at , 279 P.3d at 185; see NRS 171.010 ("Every person, whether an inhabitant of this state, or any other state, or of a territory or district of the United States, is liable to punishment by the laws of this state for a public offense committed therein, except where it is by law cognizable exclusively in the courts of the United States."). Therefore, we reject appellant's contention that only the passage of the amendment allowed his prosecution to proceed. Moreover, ex post facto is only implicated where a law is retrospective.

United States v. Lvndell, 124 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 1997). As we
recognized in Barren, NRS 62B330(3)(e)(2) is a jurisdictional statute and therefore does not raise concerns about retroactivity, as those statutes
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I947A

2

typically speak to the power of the court and do not take away a substantive right. Id. at , 279 P.3d at 185. Accordingly, we conclude that ex post facto is not implicated in this instance. See Barren, 128 Nev. at , 279 P.3d at 187 n.8 (declining consideration of ex post facto claim because retroactive application of NRS 62B330(3)(e)(2) was unnecessary). Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'

, J.

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Richard F. Cornell Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

'Appellant argued in his fast track statement that the charge was barred by the statute of limitations. However, he conceded in his fast track reply that his argument is foreclosed by NRS 171.083.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) 1947A



Download 60783.pdf

Nevada Law