From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatfield v. Legrand

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Sep 16, 2014
No. 62684 (Nev. Sep. 16, 2014)

Opinion

No. 62684

09-16-2014

GREGORY ALLEN HATFIELD, Appellant, v. ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN, LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Robert W. Lane, 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 January 23, 2013, almost four years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on March 10, 2009. Hatfield v. State, Docket No. 51719 (Order of Affirmance, February 11, 2009). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously litigated a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. 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).

Hatfield v. State, Docket No. 57351 (Order of Affirmance, September 15, 2011).

Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel excused his procedural defects. Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel would not be good cause in the instant case because the appointment of counsel in the prior post-conviction proceedings was not statutorily or constitutionally required. Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 303, 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997); McKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159, 164, 912 P.2d 255, 258 (1996). Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures, see Brown v. McDaniel, ___ Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014), and thus, Martinez does not provide good cause for this late and successive 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.
--------

/s/_________, J.

Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge

Gregory Allen Hatfield

Nye County District Attorney

Attorney General/Carson City

Nye County Clerk


Summaries of

Hatfield v. Legrand

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Sep 16, 2014
No. 62684 (Nev. Sep. 16, 2014)
Case details for

Hatfield v. Legrand

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY ALLEN HATFIELD, Appellant, v. ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN, LOVELOCK…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Sep 16, 2014

Citations

No. 62684 (Nev. Sep. 16, 2014)

Citing Cases

Hatfield v. State

See NRS 34.726(1) ; NRS 34.810(1)(b) ; NRS 34.810(3).Hatfield v. Warden , Docket No. 76477-COA (Order of…

Hatfield v. State

See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Hatfield v. State, Docket No. 66480 (Order of Affirmance,…