Entries tagged with “post-conviction” from Harmfulerror

In an unpublished order, Smith v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court finds that the district court abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel to represent a petitioner for his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  This is a recurring problem in the Eighth Judicial District as Clark County judges seldom appoint counsel for post-conviction proceedings.  In contrast, counsel is routinely appointed in Washoe County and the rural counties.

The Nevada Supreme Court has made available a new batch of unpublished decisions.  They may not be cited as precedent.  A few are of interest:

Lewis v. State - the Court finds plain error based upon a jury instruction concerning the value of a vehicle.  The instruction erroneously instructed the jury to determine the value of the vehicle at the time the vehicle was taken, rather than at the time it was possessed.  The result is a reduction from a class B felony to a class C and the Court vacates an order for $5,200 in restitution.

Johnson v. State - the merits of the issues presented are not all that interesting, but it is worth noting that the defendant was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder based upon the shotgun killings of three people inside an apartment -- proof once again that the Byford instructions on first-degree murder reflect a meaningful change from the Kazalyn instructions.

Bolden v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The district court had dismissed the petition because it was not served on the Attorney General and warden.  The Court finds that the defects were curable and the petition should not have been dismissed on those grounds.

Ruffin v. State - the Court reverses an order of the district court dismissing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The district court denied the petition because the defendant did not attach trial transcripts to his petition.  The Court found that there is no statute mandating that transcripts be attached and it would be unreasonable and wasteful for an indigent defendant to provide copies of transcripts that already exist in the district court and prosecutor's files.  The procedural history is interesting in that the district court dismissed without prejudice a 1996 petition on this ground, the defendant filed two additional post-conviction petitions, the second and third petitions were dismissed as untimely, but the Court reached the merits of the first petition based upon the appeal from the third order.

Valdominos v. State - the Court reverses a judgment of conviction for two counts of sexual assault after finding prosecutorial misconduct and error in refusing to give a defense proposed jury instruction on the legal effect of multiple sexual acts.  The Court finds that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making remarks which belittled or disparaged the defendant or his case and by improperly attacking the defendant's character.  Although the defense did not object at trial, the Court finds plain error in the prosecutors statement that insinuated the defendant had raped another woman and was a serial rapist.  Justice Maupin dissented -- he found that the State committed misconudct but believed the conviction was supported by overwhelming evidence.

 

Justice Hardesty will become the Chief Justice in  2009.

Margaret Rudin will receive a new trial.  Duh.  Who didn't see this coming.  Apparently Chris Owens, who stated to the RJ "I think it's a joke that the taxpayers will have to fund a new trial for someone who had three attorneys."  Gotta wonder if Mr. Owens would be so openly critical of a judge who was not retiring.   And for that matter, what about the joke on the taxpayers who had to fund the trial for Bryan Crawley, who received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole following a month long trial - the same sentence he would have received had the Clark County District Attorney's Office agreed to plea the case prior to trial in lieu of seeking the death penalty.  At a time when there is serious consideration of laying-off teachers and refusing hospital services because of financial concerns, did the D.A.'s office really need to incur well over $100,000 on behalf of the taxpayers in a case which could have easily been resolved prior to trial?

The Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment has issued its Final Report to the General Assembly.  The Commission recommends abolishment of capital punishment after exploring racial disparities, jurisdictional disparities, socio-economic disparities, a comparison of costs associated with the death penalty, a comparison of the effects of prolonged court cases, the risk of innocent people being executed, and other issues.

The Death Penalty Information Center has issued its Year End Report.  The Center notes that 2008 saw a 30-year low in new death sentences for the county at 111.  There were 284 death sentences in 1999.  There were 4 exonerations in 2008 and 37 executions, 95% of which were in the South. 

 

 

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases this morning.

In District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, the Court will consider whether a person may file an action under 42 USC 1983 or the Due Process Clause to obtain access to biological evidence for purposes of new DNA testing in a case in which his judgment is final and it appears that post-conviction remedies may be procedurally barred. 

In Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, the Court will consider whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.

Scotusblog provides links to be petitions, briefs in opposition, replies and amicus briefs. 

 

State v. Harte - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms an order of a district court partially granting a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  The Court rejects the State's argument that McConnell v. State (felony murder cannot be used as the sole basis for liability for first degree murder and also used as an aggravating circumstance) was wrongly decided.  The Court also rejects the State's argument that there should be a new trial, rather than just a new penalty hearing, in capital cases in which the sole aggravating circumstance is found invalid under McConnell.  The majority opinion is authored by Justice Maupin and joined by Justices Gibbons, Douglas and Cherry.  Justices Hardesy, Parraguirre and Saitta concur but express a belief that there are three fundamental flaws in McConnell's analytical framework.

Hernandez v. State - The Court, sitting en banc, affirms a district court order denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case.  In doing so, the Court declines to extend McConnell v. State to bar the dual use of torture as a theory of first-degree murder and as an aggravating circumstance to support a death sentence.  The Court, however, finds the aggravating circumstance of burglary to be invalid under McConnell, reweighs the aggravating and mitigating evidence and affirms the death sentence.  The Court rejects other post-conviction claims.  Justice Cherry dissents in part after finding that the defendant should have received a new penalty hearing because the jury may have imposed a sentence of less than death without the invalid aggravating circumstance.

Cortinas v. State - The Court (Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre & Douglas) holds that traditional harmless-error review applies when a general verdict based on multiple theories of liability may rest on a legally invalid alternative theory.  The Court also reaffirms its prior holdings that robbery is a general intent offense.

Rubio v. State - Counsel's affirmative misrepresentations of immigration consequences is an exception to the general rule that deportation is a collateral consequence that does not affect the voluntariness of a guilty plea.  Misrepresentations by a court interpreter, however, are not an exception to the general rule.  The Court also rules that the district court abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

Opinions in civil cases: 

Rivero v. Rivero -

Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center -

Five Star Capital Crop. v. Ruby -

Estate of LoMastro v. American Family Ins. -

Village League v. State, Bd. of Equalization -

Mesagate HOA v. City of Fernley -

Lehrer McGovern Bovis v. Bullock Insulation