Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Habitual Offenders: Penalties in Nevada

In Nevada, a person who has been convicted of at least two other felony offenses can be sentenced to additional time in prison if they are found guilty of another felony crime. Under NRS 207.010, designation as a habitual criminal will result in harsher sentencing for any further charges.

If a defendant has been convicted of other felonies, either in Nevada or anywhere else, they face additional prison time based upon the number of previous felony convictions on their record.  
  • If convicted of two felonies previously, the defendant will be punished for a category B felony by incarceration in state prison for 5 to 20 years.
  • If convicted of three felonies previously, the defendant will be punished for a category A felony by incarceration in state prison for: 
    • Life without the possibility of parole;
    • Life with the possibility for parole after 10 years served; or
    • 25 years with possibility for parole after 10 years served.

Importance of Enlisting Strong Defense

The district attorney can choose whether to file habitual offender charges against the defendant, but the judge can also choose to throw these charges out. Additionally, the defendant can challenge the habitual offender charge, even if they are convicted of the latest felony. The court must then hold a hearing on the matter to determine whether the defendant should receive habitual offender designation.  

Habitual offender charges can result in excessive prison time, which is why it is crucial for a defendant to retain the representation of an experienced and effective defense attorney. De Castroverde Law Group prides itself on providing clients in Las Vegas with smart and aggressive defense against all types of misdemeanor and felony charges. If you or a loved one is facing habitual offender charges in Clark County, call (702) 222-9999 to learn how this skilled family-run firm can fight for you!

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Negligent Security & Premises Liability

In Nevada, casinos, hotels, clubs, restaurants, bars, stores, and all other commercial establishments are required to ensure the safety of their guests. 

Under premises liability law, property owners have a responsibility to protect guests, patrons, employees, and visitors from potential hazards on their properties. This means that in addition to preventing accidents like slip and falls, owners of commercial establishments must also make sure that their premises have sufficient security to keep all visitors safe from assault and other types of violence. 

Victims have the right to file premises liability claims against commercial establishments that failed to ensure their safety because of a lack of security.

What types of security should commercial establishments have?

Property owners must take reasonable precaution to prevent violent crimes from taking place on their premises. Steps commercial establishments should take to protect visitors and prevent crime include:
  • Installing surveillance cameras
  • Keeping all areas well-lit
  • Properly training all security guards and bouncers
  • Hiring enough security guards to patrol the whole premises
  • Restricting access to areas that are reserved for patrons
  • Installing strong door and window locks
In order to have grounds for a claim, the victim must be able to prove that the attack could have been prevented if proper security measures were in place. It is important to hire an experienced lawyer who can prove to the court that the property owner did not take reasonable care to ensure visitors’ safety by failing to provide adequate security.

If you or a loved one was the victim of a violent crime due to negligent security at a Las Vegas establishment, contact De Castroverde Law Group. Our family-run firm believes that every victim deserves justice and fair compensation for their injuries, and we may be able to advocate for you. Call our team to learn about your legal options! 

Friday, October 10, 2014

Underage Drunk Driving in Nevada

In Nevada, underage drivers who are caught operating their vehicles with even a small amount of alcohol in their systems can face serious consequences under NRS 484C.350. As per state law, a person under the age of 21 can be charged with driving under the influence if their BAC measures .02% or higher.

Nevada’s zero tolerance policy will result in arrest for any underage driver with a BAC of .02% or more, regardless of whether they are intoxicated. If you or a loved one has been charged with an under 21 DUI, it’s important to enlist the defense of a skilled attorney who can help you fight the charges and serious consequences. Penalties for underage DUI include:

  • First Offense: 2 days to 6 months of jail time, $400-$1000 in fines, 90 day license suspension, and a mandatory evaluation to determine if they have a substance abuse problem
  • Second Offense: 10 days to 6 months of jail time, $750-$1000 in fines, and a 90 day license suspension
Aside from the legal penalties, if you are charged with underage drunk driving you could also face suspension or expulsion from your high school or college. Additionally, your insurance rates will increase significantly with a DUI arrest on your record.

Fighting Under 21 DUI Charges

Being arrested for DUI does not mean that you will automatically be convicted; you have the right to fight your charges. Depending on the specifics of your case, there may be a number of different defenses you can use to challenge the charges and evidence. Possible defenses for under 21 DUI charges include:
  • The traffic stop was done without legal justification
  • The breath test equipment that the officer used was faulty
  • Outside factors negatively impacted your ability to perform the field sobriety test
  • You were not drinking alcohol and something else caused the BAC reading
Make sure you hire an attorney who has the experience and skill needed to effectively fight your charges. At De Castroverde Law Group we provide aggressive defense for clients charged with all types of DUI offenses in Las Vegas. Contact our team today to learn how we can protect your rights and fight for you!

Friday, October 3, 2014

Premises Liability: Who is at Fault?

It is a property owner’s responsibility to ensure the safety of all those that enter their property. When a person visits another’s property, they are doing so under the reasonable assumption that the owner or manager has taken necessary action to prevent dangerous situations from occurring.

Premises liability law seeks to ensure that stores, homes, buildings, retail shops, outlets, restaurants, and other facilities are kept safe for public and private use. Property owners are required to provide safe conditions for visitors and patrons, in addition to warning of any potential hazards present on their property.  

Property Owner Carries Majority of Responsibility

An owner can be held liable for any injuries that occur on their property if they knew of the potential hazard, or should have known of the hazard, but did not make a reasonable effort to fix the problem. Property owners may also be required to provide reasonable warnings to potential trespassers for any hazardous conditions on their property that may not be obvious or visible.

For example, a property owner could be held liable for any injuries that occur on their premises because of:
  • Broken hand rails
  • Wet floor
  • Poor lighting
  • Lack of security
  • Cracked sidewalk
  • Exposed electrical wires
  • Hazardous materials

Comparative Fault in Premises Liability

Comparative fault refers to when both the property owner and the visitor share fault for the injury, often because the visitor failed to exercise expected care for their own safety. In other words, their actions may have contributed to their injury in some way. An example would be if a visitor cut their leg on the sharp corner of a shelf in a grocery store, but did so while chasing a friend through the aisles. In these incidents, the monetary recovery for the injuries can be reduced by the percentage of the visitor’s liability for the accident.

Standard comparative fault laws do not usually apply when a premises liability case involves injuries to a child. Because young children are typically unable to recognize potentially dangerous situations, the law does not hold them liable, even if their injuries were caused in part by their own negligence. For example, it is an owner’s responsibility to install a fence around their pool and keep the area locked securely. If an owner does not install a fence and a child wanders onto the property and drowns in the pool, the owner would be liable.

Know Your Options

If you or a family member was injured on another person’s property because the owner was negligent, you may be entitled to compensation under premises liability law. De Castroverde Law Group represents injury victims in Las Vegas, and we may be able to help you seek justice. Contact our experienced premises liability attorneys to learn about your rights and options if you were injured in Clark County.