Warren (David) v. State ( 2014 )

 violation of the Fourth Amendment; (5) his right to be free from double
jeopardy was violated because prior convictions were used to enhance his
sentence; (6) his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when
he was required to provide a blood sample; (7) his speedy trial rights were
violated; (8) he was denied the right to an impartial jury because the jury
was only allowed to decide issues of fact and not allowed to decide issues of
law; (9) the court was biased and gave preferential treatment to the
prosecution; (10) the charging information was not sufficient; (11) the
State failed to inform him of a second criminal complaint causing him to
be subject to a warrant and arrest; (12) the State failed to present an
expert witness at the preliminary hearing and instead relied upon an
affidavit; (13) his right under the Seventh Amendment of the United
States Constitution to the protection of Anglo-Saxon common law, as
opposed to British case law, was infringed when he was convicted of
driving under the influence because no one else was harmed by his
actions; (14) his bail was set in an excessive amount; (15) his fine of $2000
was excessive under the Eighth Amendment; (16) he was subject to cruel
and unusual punishment because he was sentenced to prison for a crime
when no one was injured and because the court ordered an ignition-
interlock device on his personal automobile; (17) the arresting officer made
a false statement in the booking documents that he had caused a death or
substantial bodily harm; (18) the arresting officer perjured himself about
when he conducted the license plate query; (19) the State wrongly filed a
second criminal complaint after it had dismissed the first criminal
complaint; (20) evidence was improperly used because it had been
gathered for the false charge of driving under the influence causing death
or substantial bodily injury; (21) the State used his silence as evidence of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th 4NE54.
guilt; (22) he was not provided adequate time to or conditions in which to
prepare for the sentencing hearing as he was only given the presentence
investigation report one hour before sentencing and then only when he
was in restraints and without a table or writing instruments; (23) he was
denied the right to confront the author of the presentence investigation
report; (24) the presentence investigation report contained a number of
inaccuracies; (25) the judgment of conviction was not filed within the time
allowed by NRAP 4(b)(5); (26) the judgment of conviction contains errors;
(27) he was denied credit for time spent on house arrest; and (28) the
judgment of conviction was not served on appellant. These claims were
waived as they could have been raised on direct appeal, and appellant
failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to do so and actual
prejudice. See NRS 34.810(1)(b), (3). Therefore the district court did not
err in denying these claims.
Next, appellant claimed: (1) his proposed jury instructions
were erroneously rejected; (2) he was denied discovery material in
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) he was not
permitted to read a prepared statement at sentencing. These claims were
considered and rejected on direct appeal. See Warren v. State, Docket No.
60126 (Order of Affirmance, July 23, 2013). The doctrine of the law of the
case prevents further litigation of these issues. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev.
314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975). Therefore, the district court did not err in
denying these claims.
Next, appellant claimed that this court erred in not allowing
him to represent himself on direct appeal. This claim was improperly
raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus as it does
not challenge the validity of the judgment of conviction or sentence. See
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (e.
NRS 34.724(1). Further, this claim improperly calls for a lower court to
review a decision of this court. Therefore, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying this claim.
Finally, appellant claimed: (1) he was forced to contract with
a towing company and an ignition-interlock-device company in violation of
his constitutional rights; (2) his reputation was harmed by the false charge
and its inclusion in SCOPE and police reports; and (3) he was denied
adequate access to the law library, legal aid, and the clerk of the court
after trial. These claims do not challenge the validity of the judgment of
conviction or sentence, and therefore, they are not properly brought in a
post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See NRS 34.724(1).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
David Thomas Warren
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e