Garrett (Raymond) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                 Appellant appeared to claim that he had good cause due to
    ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel during the litigation of his
    first petition. Appellant's claim lacked merit as appellant had no
    statutory right to post-conviction counsel, and thus the ineffective
    assistance of post-conviction counsel did not provide good cause for a
    successive and untimely petition.     See Crump v. Warden, 
    113 Nev. 293
    ,
    303 & n.5, 
    934 P.2d 247
    , 253 & n.5 (1997); McKague v. Warden, 
    112 Nev. 159
    , 164-65 & n.5, 
    912 P.2d 255
    , 258 & n.5 (1996); see also Brown v.
    McDaniel, 130 Nev. , 
    331 P.3d 867
    , 870 (2014) (explaining that
    post-conviction counsel's performance does not constitute good cause to
    excuse the procedural bars unless the appointment of post-conviction
    counsel was mandated by statute). Therefore, the district court did not err
    in denying the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
    C.J.
    3 We  have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
    proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
    that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
    that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
    submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
    below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    (en
    SAITTA, J., dissenting:
    I would extend the equitable rule recognized in Martinez v.
    Ryan, 566 U.S. , 
    132 S. Ct. 1309
     (2012) to this case because appellant
    was convicted of murder and is facing a severe sentence.   See Brown, 130
    Nev. at P.3d at 875 (Cherry, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I would
    reverse and remand for the district court to determine whether appellant
    can demonstrate a substantial underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-
    counsel claim that was omitted due to the ineffective assistance of post-
    conviction counsel. I therefore dissent.
    Saitta
    cc:   Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
    Raymond A. Garrett
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA                                             3
    (01 1947A    em
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 66004

Filed Date: 12/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021