![]() |
![]() |
|||
|
||||
|
Nov. 21, 2007
Cleveland request for release denied
By CHRISTINA EICHELKRAUT
David Cleveland, of Pahrump, was denied a request to be released on his own recognizance Monday, Nov. 19. Cleveland was involved in the head-on collision that killed Jeremy Moon, 27 on Thanksgiving Day last year. The accident also severely injured Jeremy Moon's wife, Anna Moon, and resulted in an arm injury for the Moons' cousin, Crystal Lopez, a Pahrump Valley High School student who was 15-years old at the time. Cleveland will stand trial for six felony charges, including three of driving under the influence of a controlled substance (listed in the criminal complaint as cocaine) causing substantial bodily harm, one count of the same causing death, and two of unlawful use of a controlled substance. Although he originally pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, Cleveland changed his plea to simply not guilty at his last court appearance in October. He has been incarcerated without bail since he violated the conditions of his parole at the Justice Court level last year by failing to submit to a random, court-ordered drug test. At his District Court arraignment, Fifth District Judge Robert Lane ordered Cleveland to be held without bail. Patrick E. McDonald and Osvaldo Fumo, Cleveland's defense lawyers, based the request on the fact that his client's trial had been continued to Jan. 16 at the state's request. Cleveland was originally scheduled to stand trial in November. "The fact that the trial has been continued is not enough to support an own-recognizance release or giving him bail based on his past history," Prosecutor Kirk Vitto argued. Fifth District Judge Robert Lane also remained unconvinced the continuance merited Cleveland's release. "The arguments, as I read through them, to me were redundant to the arguments we've already had," Lane said, referring to the motion submitted by the defense. "We've already had this hearing, we've argued it out, I've made my decision." Furthermore, Lane said that a couple of months is not long enough to merit what would essentially amount to another hearing. "Maybe if I'd continued another year or something it'd be reasonable to say, 'Let's take another look at that guy sitting in jail another year,' but two or three months isn't that long based on the totality of the reasons I've previously denied this motion," Lane said. |
|