The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the appellant Antonio Aldape could challenge the conditions of his probation if the appeal waiver in the plea agreement only specified that by entering the plea, you “waive your right to a direct appeal of conviction.” Additionally, the Court evaluated the constitutionality of the appellant’s probation conditions, condition 15, mandated by NRS 176A.410(1)(q), prohibiting internet access, and condition 11, pursuant to NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3), restricting entry into specific geographic areas. The Court applied contract principles to the appellant’s appeal waiver in his plea agreement and held the appellant’s waiver did not preclude challenges to the conditions of his waiver because the State is bound by the plain meaning of the words it used, and the appellant was not canvassed about the appeal waiver’s scope, thus he would not logically understand that it also precluded the right to appeal probation conditions. The Court further found condition 15 mandated by NRS 176A.410(1)(q) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it restricts more speech than necessary to serve a significant government’s interest and it was not narrowly tailored enough. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant’s challenge that condition 11 pursuant to NRS 176A.400(1)(c)(3) was unconstitutional and the district court abused its discretion imposing such a condition because it is reasonable to restrict convicted sex offenders from areas where children are commonly found.
Robinson, Toree, "Antonio Cruz Aldape v. State of Nevada, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (Sept. 28, 2023)" (2023). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1607.