IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ROBERT MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, N . 79720
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FL
Respondent. DEC 2 3 2020
A.
UPREMF. COUF-7
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a
postconviction motion to modify a sentence. First Judicial District Court,
Carson City; James E. Wilson, Judge.
Appellant Robert Hernandez argues that legislative history
shows that the Legislature mistakenly omitted a provision limiting an
elder-enhancement penalty, so the since-amended enhancement statute's
plain meaning led to an absurd result in his case, and the district court
erred by denying his motion to modify his sentence.
We review statutory-construction issues de novo, Castaneda v.
State,
, 110 (2016), and interpret
unambiguous statutory language by its plain meaning unless doing so
would lead to an unreasonable or absurd result, Newell v. State,
, 603-04 (2015).
In its order denying Hernandez's motion, the district court
concluded that it could not resort to legislative history because NRS 193.167
(2013) was unambiguous. 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 110, § 1, at 390. Although
Hernandez need not prove that the statute is ambiguous if he can instead
prove that its plain meaning would have led to an absurd result, he cannot
use the legislative history to do so, but only the statute's plain meaning.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A 40).• Zo -Li 3og
See Newell, 131 Nev. at 977, 364 P.3d at 604 C[W]hen the 'literal, plain
meaning interpretation leads to an unreasonable or absurd result, this
court may look to other sources for the statute's meaning." (quoting State v.
Friend,
(2002))). The legislative history
is available for consideration only after he establishes an absurd result.
In any case, NRS 193.167 (2013)'s plain meaning would not
have led to an absurd result. The maximum penalty for the enhancement
was and remains a 20-year prison term, compare NRS 193.167(1), with NRS
193.167(1) (2013), and the minirnum penalty for robbery was, see 1995 Nev.
Stat., ch. 443, § 60, at 1187-88, and remains a 2-year term, NRS 200.380(2).
Before the Legislature added the must-not-exceed provision in 2017, the
enhancement penalty could have hypothetically exceeded the penalty for
the underlying robbery by as much as 18 years. Such a result may have
been unusual but not absurd. See, e.g., Crooks v. Harrel.son,
(1930) (explaining that an absurd result "must be so gross as to shock the
general moral or common sense in order to justify departure from plainmeaning interpretation, which will happen "only under rare and
exceptional circumstances"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
J.
Hardesty
J.
Cadish
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A .4e).
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
The Law Office of Kristina Wildeveld & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
( 0) 1947A 41D),4
