Garrett (Raymond) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Garrett (Raymond) v. State

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

Docket66004

StatusUnpublished

This text of Garrett (Raymond) v. State (Garrett (Raymond) 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

Garrett (Raymond) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

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

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Garrett (Raymond) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-raymond-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack