Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Leavitt V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 29, 2016) (Per Curiam), Brent Resh
Leavitt V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 83 (Dec. 29, 2016) (Per Curiam), Brent Resh
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court expressly repudiated the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Nevada law in Riley v. McDaniel and therefore found that Riley cannot serve as the basis for an argument that good cause exists to overcome a procedural default in filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow
State V. Boston, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (March. 31, 2016), Nancy Snow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to death of each murder. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made in two interviews with police after his initial appearance before a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at his initial appearance before the magistrate, but Defendant waived his right to …
Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla
Rippo V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (Feb. 25, 2016), Kristian Kaskla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Rippo’s claim, that the ineffective assistance of the counsel who represented him in the first post conviction hearing excused the procedural bars to claims raised in the second petition, was rejected. The Court provided guidance on two issues related to whether an ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim has been raised in a timely fashion: (1) when does a postconviction-counsel claim reasonably become available, and (2) what is a reasonable time thereafter in which the claim must be asserted. They held on (1) that the factual basis for such a claim is not reasonably available until the conclusion of postconviction proceedings in which the …