Heath (Franklin) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Heath (Franklin) v. State

DecidedSeptember 17, 2014

Docket65890

StatusUnpublished

This text of Heath (Franklin) v. State (Heath (Franklin) 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

Heath (Franklin) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause for his procedural defects. Rather, appellant argued that he was actually innocent due to an alleged charging error. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of . . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Douglas ;1°.74 J.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Franklin Dale Heath Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ue

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

barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause for his procedural defects. Rather, appellant argued that he was actually innocent due to an alleged charging error. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of . . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Douglas ;1°.74 J.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Franklin Dale Heath Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ue

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heath (Franklin) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-franklin-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack