Bates (Heather) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Bates (Heather) v. State

DecidedApril 9, 2013

Docket61495

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bates (Heather) v. State (Bates (Heather) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates (Heather) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2); Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when specific factual allegations are asserted "that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, would entitle him to relief"), and did not err by rejecting Bates' ineffective- assistance claims. Bates also contends that "NRAP 3C has a chilling effect on the constitutional right to direct appeal and the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal." In its order dismissing the petition, the district court noted that Bates failed to present any facts or authority in support of this claim. We have consistently rejected this argument, as Bates concedes, and again point out that NRAP 3C complies with the due process requirements of the state and federal constitutions. See Wood v. State, 115 Nev. 344, 352, 990 P.2d 786, 791 (1999). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting this claim, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

ittgargttg6.4, 1 ,. KMIAMMEMilM cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

3 (0) 1947A

:LleaNnit1111111111111BEINEWASEMEMONNIMMOr az

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2); Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when specific factual allegations are asserted "that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, would entitle him to relief"), and did not err by rejecting Bates' ineffective- assistance claims. Bates also contends that "NRAP 3C has a chilling effect on the constitutional right to direct appeal and the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal." In its order dismissing the petition, the district court noted that Bates failed to present any facts or authority in support of this claim. We have consistently rejected this argument, as Bates concedes, and again point out that NRAP 3C complies with the due process requirements of the state and federal constitutions. See Wood v. State, 115 Nev. 344, 352, 990 P.2d 786, 791 (1999). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting this claim, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.