Harris (Conor) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Harris (Conor) v. State

DecidedJune 13, 2013

Docket59787

StatusUnpublished

This text of Harris (Conor) v. State (Harris (Conor) 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

Harris (Conor) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

motion is precluded by laches because there was a 14-year delay in filing his motion, Harris waited three years after he learned of the Finger decision to file his motion, and there was credible testimony that important witnesses and evidence are no longer available because of Harris' delay. We conclude that the district court did not err by finding that laches precluded consideration of Harris' motion. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 564-65, 1 P.3d 969, 973 (2000). Therefore, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Cherry

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Law Office of Thomas L. Qualls, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

11111EMatrENIIIII

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

motion is precluded by laches because there was a 14-year delay in filing his motion, Harris waited three years after he learned of the Finger decision to file his motion, and there was credible testimony that important witnesses and evidence are no longer available because of Harris' delay. We conclude that the district court did not err by finding that laches precluded consideration of Harris' motion. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 564-65, 1 P.3d 969, 973 (2000). Therefore, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.