Stewart v. Warden, Nevada State Prison

Nevada Supreme Court

Stewart v. Warden, Nevada State Prison

579 P.2d 1244, 94 Nev. 516, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 601

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 9, 1978

DocketNo. 10141

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 P.2d 1244 (Stewart v. Warden, Nevada State Prison) 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

Stewart v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 579 P.2d 1244, 94 Nev. 516, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 601 (Neb. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

James Rudy Stewart, Jr., was convicted, by jury verdict, of first degree murder and the judgment and sentence were affirmed by this court in Stewart v. State, 92 Nev. 168, 547 P.2d 320 (1976). Thereafter, Stewart filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was summarily dismissed. On appeal that order was vacated and the case was remanded to permit the district court to hear and resolve the contentions raised in the post-conviction petition. Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 555 P.2d 218 (1976).

The instant proceeding is Stewart’s appeal from the order which the district court entered after it had considered and resolved those allegations contained in. the petition for post-conviction relief.

The only assigned errors complain of two (2) jury instructions. At trial there was no objection to either instruction; therefore, the alleged errors would not have been considered in Stewart’s direct appeal. See Cutler v. State, 93 Nev. 329, 566 P.2d 809 (1977), where we noted that a failure to tender an objection during trial precludes appellate consideration of the claimed error. Cf. Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233 (1977). Since the alleged errors were not cognizable on the direct appeal, a fortiori, they are not cognizable in a subsequent post-conviction proceeding.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

James Rudy Stewart, Jr., was convicted, by jury verdict, of first degree murder and the judgment and sentence were affirmed by this court in Stewart v. State, 92 Nev. 168, 547 P.2d 320 (1976). Thereafter, Stewart filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was summarily dismissed. On appeal that order was vacated and the case was remanded to permit the district court to hear and resolve the contentions raised in the post-conviction petition. Stewart v. Warden, 92 Nev. 588, 555 P.2d 218 (1976).

The instant proceeding is Stewart’s appeal from the order which the district court entered after it had considered and resolved those allegations contained in. the petition for post-conviction relief.

The only assigned errors complain of two (2) jury instructions. At trial there was no objection to either instruction; therefore, the alleged errors would not have been considered in Stewart’s direct appeal. See Cutler v. State, 93 Nev. 329, 566 P.2d 809 (1977), where we noted that a failure to tender an objection during trial precludes appellate consideration of the claimed error. Cf. Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233 (1977). Since the alleged errors were not cognizable on the direct appeal, a fortiori, they are not cognizable in a subsequent post-conviction proceeding.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 P.2d 1244, 94 Nev. 516, 1978 Nev. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-warden-nevada-state-prison-nev-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack