From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Depiano v. Palmer

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 13, 2013
No. 61562 (Nev. May. 13, 2013)

Opinion

No. 61562

05-13-2013

DAVID DEPIANO, Appellant, v. JACK PALMER, WARDEN, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 dismissing 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).

In his January 10, 2012, petition appellant claimed that the district court was without jurisdiction to convict him because the laws reproduced in the Nevada Revised Statutes did not contain enacting clauses as required by the Nevada Constitution. Nev. Const, art. 4, § 23. This claim was not based on an allegation that appellant's guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that his plea was entered without effective assistance of counsel, and therefore, was not permissible in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus stemming from a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(l)(a).

As a separate and independent ground for affirming the district court's order, appellant's claim was without merit as the Statutes of Nevada contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the Nevada Constitution. The Nevada Revised Statutes reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the petition. 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.

Gibbons

_______________, J.

Douglas

_______________, J.

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

David Depiano

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Washoe District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Depiano v. Palmer

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 13, 2013
No. 61562 (Nev. May. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Depiano v. Palmer

Case Details

Full title:DAVID DEPIANO, Appellant, v. JACK PALMER, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: May 13, 2013

Citations

No. 61562 (Nev. May. 13, 2013)

Citing Cases

Walters v. Nevada

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

Helfrich v. Nevada

An alleged violation of a state constitutional doctrine of separation of powers does not give rise to a…