From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warren v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 20, 2019
No. 76153-COA (Nev. App. Mar. 20, 2019)

Opinion

No. 76153-COA

03-20-2019

JOSEPH NAPOLEAN WARREN, III, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Joseph Napolean Warren, III, appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on November 21, 2017. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).

Warren's petition was untimely because it was filed more than 26 years after the remittitur on direct appeal was issued on May 21, 1991. See NRS 34.726(1). It was successive because Warren had previously filed several postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and the grounds for this petition could have been raised in those petitions. See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2). And it constituted an abuse of the writ because Warren raised grounds that were new and different from those raised in his previous petitions. See NRS 34.810(2). Consequently, Warren's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3); State v. Williams, 120 Nev. 473, 476-77, 93 P.3d 1258, 1260 (2004).

See McCurdy v. State, 107 Nev. 275, 809 P.2d 1265 (1991) (McCurdy was Warren's codefendant and their appeals were consolidated).

See Warren v. State, Docket No. 52247 (Order of Affirmance, May 6, 2009); Warren v. State, Docket No. 28281 (Order Dismissing Appeal, October 2, 1998). Warren did not appeal from the district court order denying the petition he filed on April 22, 1992. --------

Warren's only attempt to show good cause was his claim of "newly acquired knowledge" about the requirement for a separate penalty hearing after a jury has rendered a guilty verdict in a first-degree murder trial. See NRS 175.552(1). However, Warren failed to demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from complying with the procedural default rules, see Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003), and show that errors in the proceedings underlying his judgment worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, see State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 197, 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012). We conclude the district court did not err by denying Warren's procedurally-barred postconviction habeas petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Bulla cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge

Joseph Napolean Warren, III

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Warren v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 20, 2019
No. 76153-COA (Nev. App. Mar. 20, 2019)
Case details for

Warren v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH NAPOLEAN WARREN, III, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 20, 2019

Citations

No. 76153-COA (Nev. App. Mar. 20, 2019)