[media id=13 width=320 height=240]
A three judge panel of the Nevada Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Salvana Fernandez of Elko who was found guilty last October for the starving death of her seven month old baby girl in a special hearing in Wendover Thursday
Fernandez was convicted at her fourth trial in the death by malnutrition of her 7-month-old daughter. At the first trial, an Elko County jury found Fernandez guilty of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. However, this court reversed the conviction after concluding that errors in the charging documents and the jury instructions may have allowed the jury to convict Fernandez on an unconstitutional basis. On remand, Fernandez was tried three more times before a jury reached a unanimous verdict finding her guilty of child abuse resulting in substantial bodily harm. This is Fernandez’s appeal from that judgment of conviction.
The case will be heard by Justices Michael Cherry, Mark Gibbons and Kristina Pickering at the West Wendover City Hall.
At issue for the judges in the case is whether District Judge Michael Memeo improperly instruct the jury by using language that negated the “knowing” and “intentional” state of mind requirements this court identified in its disposition of Fernandez’s first appeal?
In addition to the Fernandez case the panel will hear appeals from Lynden Harker of Ely. Harker entered a convenience store in Ely with a knife in his hand and demanded that the clerk give him everything in the cash drawer. Harker was intoxicated at the time. When the clerk called 911, Harker left the store. Harker entered an Alford plea to burglary with the use of a deadly weapon and assault with the use of a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 62-156 months and 24-60 months. This is Harker’s appeal from the judgment of conviction.
There are three questions at issue: (1) Did the district court abuse its discretion at sentencing because it failed to consider mitigating evidence? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion by focusing its sentencing determination on Harker’s past conduct? (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to consider Harker’s drug evaluation and rehabilitation needs?
