Doyle (Antonio) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 13, 2019
• Docket: 74600
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTONIO LAVON DOYLE, No. 74600 Appellant, vs. FILED THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. SEP 1 3 2019 EUZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE BY DEPUTY CLERK This is an appeal from a district court order denying postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy M. Saitta, Senior Judge. Appellant filed his petition on January 11, 2017, more than one year after the remittitur issued on appeal from the judgment of conviction. See Doyle v. State, 112 Nev. 879, 921 P.2d 901 (1996). The petition was therefore untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant acknowledges that he previously sought postconviction relief. The petition was therefore successive to the extent it raised claims that were previously litigated and resolved on their merits, and it constituted an abuse of the writ to the extent it raised new claims. See NRS 34.810(2). Finally, because the State pleaded laches, appellant had to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2). Accordingly, the petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice, NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3), or a showing that the procedural bars should be excused to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice, Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001). Appellant argues that he demonstrated good cause and prejudice sufficient to excuse the procedural bars, and that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if his petition was not considered,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 14 -38t(27 because Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), set forth new retroactive rules that: (1) require trial courts to instruct jurors that the State must prove that the aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) prohibit the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when an aggravating circumstance is stricken by a reviewing court. We disagree. See Castillo v. State, 135 Nev., Adv. Op. 16, 442 P.3d 558 (2019) (discussing death-eligibility in Nevada and rejecting the arguments that Hurst announced new law relevant to the weighing component of Nevada's death penalty procedures or to appellate reweighing); Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 57-59, 412 P.3d 43, 53-54 (rejecting the argument that Hurst announced new law relevant to the weighing component of Nevada's death penalty procedures), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, J. Hardesty

.114.4L-0 , J. PAraguirre Stiglich •

, J. , J. Cadish Silver

2 cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Nancy M. Saitta, Senior Judge Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A c‘i•