From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hull v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 16, 2013
No. 62954 (Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Opinion

No. 62954

2013-10-16

ROGER WILLIAM HULL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Janet J. Berry, Judge.

This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

Appellant filed his petition on November 16, 2012, more than nine years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on April 8, 2003. Hull v. State, Docket No. 37953 (Order of Affirmance, January 31, 2003). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously filed two post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as a number of his claims were new and different from those raised in his previous petitions. See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).

Hull v. State, Docket No. 44376 (Order of Affirmance, September 14, 2005); Hull v. State, Docket No. 50840 (Order of Affirmance, May 15, 2008).

Appellant first claimed that the procedural bars did not apply because the district court did not have jurisdiction to convict him because the laws reproduced in the Nevada Revised Statutes did not contain an enacting clause as required by the Nevada Constitution. Nev. Const. art. 4, § 23. Appellant's claim was without merit. Appellant's claim did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. Moreover, the Statutes of Nevada contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution. The Nevada Revised Statutes reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.

Second, appellant claimed that he had good cause because he was immune from prosecution due to NRS 432B.160, which grants immunity to persons reporting child abuse or neglect. This claim cannot constitute good cause as appellant raised this issue in a previous petition and this court rejected that claim. Hull v. State, Docket No. 44376 (Order of Affirmance September 14, 2005). The doctrine of law of the case prevents further litigation of this claim and "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975).

Third, appellant claimed that he suffers from a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Appellant did not demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice 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 as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
--------

_______________, J.

Hardesty

_______________, J.

Parraguirre

_______________, J.

Cherry
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge

Roger William Hull

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Second District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Hull v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 16, 2013
No. 62954 (Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)
Case details for

Hull v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROGER WILLIAM HULL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 16, 2013

Citations

No. 62954 (Nev. Oct. 16, 2013)

Citing Cases

Walters v. Nevada

Nothing in the strained logic presented by plaintiffs leads to a different outcome with regard to their…

United States v. Semrad

ECF No. 39. For instance, Semrad argues that, because the N.R.S. are unconstitutional, his prior Nevada…