Ramon Garcia appealed his convictions for: (1) burglary while in possession of a firearm, (2) robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, (3) first-degree kidnapping, 4. conspiracy to commit burglary, (5) another burglary while in the possession of a firearm, 6. conspiracy to commit robbery, (7) attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and 8. false imprisonment. Garcia argued that: (1) the jury instruction on false imprisonment was improper, (2). the state presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict on kidnapping and false imprisonment, (3) the district court erroneously failed to hold a hearing on his motion to dismiss counsel, (4) the statutory reasonable doubt instruction is unconstitutional, (5) the district court erroneously failed to permit crossexamination of non-adverse witnesses, and (6) the convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit burglary violate the double jeopardy clause.
Carley, Justin L., "Summary of Garcia v. State " (2005). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 615.