Potts (Brandon) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 22, 2013
• Docket: 62555
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

We rejected Potts' claim that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss and/or suppress when we considered his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this court prior to the entry of his guilty plea. We previously held that "[c] onsidering the totality of the circumstances, . . . Potts was not subjected to a custodial interrogation triggering the requirements under Miranda," see Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 444-45, 187 P.3d 152, 159-60 (2008); Holyfield v. State, 101 Nev. 793, 797, 711 P.2d 834, 836 (1985), abrogated on other grounds by Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S., 292 (1990), and that "[elven assuming that Potts was in custody, his statements and participation in field sobriety tests were not accomplished in the context of an interrogation under Miranda. Dixon v. State, 103 Nev. 272, 274, 737 P.2d 1162, 1164 (1987)." Potts, Docket No. 61511 (Order Denying Petition at 2- 3). We conclude that the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes further litigation of this same issue. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975); see also Tien Fu Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630, 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (observing that this court may 'depart from a prior holding if convinced that it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice" (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n.8 (1983))). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Sa.4321 Hardesty

PCPAMOkOM 9 • J. Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

I cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Law Offices of John G. Watkins Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk