Owens (Daniel) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Owens (Daniel) v. State

DecidedSeptember 19, 2016

Docket69331

StatusUnpublished

This text of Owens (Daniel) v. State (Owens (Daniel) 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

Owens (Daniel) v. State, (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DANIEL OWENS, No. 69331 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. SEP 1 9 2016

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge. The district court denied appellant's petition as moot because appellant, who was in custody at the time he filed his petition, expired his sentence before the district court could rule on the petition. This court recently held that the expiration of a sentence during the pendency of a petition does not necessarily render a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus moot because we presume that a conviction has collateral consequences. Martinez-Hernandez v. State, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, P.3d (August 12, 2016). Accordingly, appellant's appeal-deprivation claim was not rendered moot, and we conclude that the district court's ruling to the contrary was error. However, appellant also raised two claims challenging counsel's performance as it pertained to appellant's sentence. Where claims raised in the petition pertain only to a sentence, the only relief would be a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 85 Nev. 485, 488, 457 P.2d 217, 219 (1969). And where that

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1.947A sentence is expired, the sentencing-related claims are moot. Martinez- Hernandez, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, P.3d at n.1, Accordingly, appellant's sentence-related claims were rendered moot by the expiration of the sentence, and we conclude that the district court's ruling as to those claims was not error. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

, C.J. Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DANIEL OWENS, No. 69331 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. SEP 1 9 2016

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge. The district court denied appellant's petition as moot because appellant, who was in custody at the time he filed his petition, expired his sentence before the district court could rule on the petition. This court recently held that the expiration of a sentence during the pendency of a petition does not necessarily render a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus moot because we presume that a conviction has collateral consequences. Martinez-Hernandez v. State, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, P.3d (August 12, 2016). Accordingly, appellant's appeal-deprivation claim was not rendered moot, and we conclude that the district court's ruling to the contrary was error. However, appellant also raised two claims challenging counsel's performance as it pertained to appellant's sentence. Where claims raised in the petition pertain only to a sentence, the only relief would be a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 85 Nev. 485, 488, 457 P.2d 217, 219 (1969). And where that

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1.947A sentence is expired, the sentencing-related claims are moot. Martinez- Hernandez, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, P.3d at n.1, Accordingly, appellant's sentence-related claims were rendered moot by the expiration of the sentence, and we conclude that the district court's ruling as to those claims was not error. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

, C.J. Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Owens (Daniel) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-daniel-v-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack