Groesbeck v. Warden, Nevada State Prison
| Decision Date | 25 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 14393,14393 |
| Citation | 679 P.2d 1268,100 Nev. 259 |
| Parties | Robert James GROESBECK, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Some twenty-three years ago Robert James Groesbeck was convicted of first degree murder. He now seeks release on the ground that two jury instructions given at his trial were constitutionally impermissible.
Groesbeck's petition for habeas corpus relief was filed in the district court on February 24, 1982. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the instructions were harmless by reason of the overwhelming evidence of guilt against Groesbeck and because the long delay in seeking relief was unreasonable and prejudicial to the state's ability to respond. We affirm the ruling of the district court.
In reviewing the petition, we must consider whether there are time limitations on the right of a convicted felon to challenge by habeas corpus a criminal conviction. The present petition for post-conviction relief constitutes the third time in twenty-one years that Robert James Groesbeck has sought to challenge his conviction through the use of habeas corpus. Despite the failure of previous attempts Groesbeck once again calls upon the courts to rule upon the legality of his conviction.
The difficulties relating to habeas corpus petitions that are filed many years after conviction have become of increasing concern to the courts within the past several years. The lengthy passage of time between conviction and a subsequent challenge is a factor which by itself unduly works to the advantage of a felon belatedly seeking relief from conviction. Memories of the crime may diminish and become attenuated. The facts and circumstances of the offense may be impossible to reconstruct. Moreover, as in this case, the frustration of attempting to review the events of a trial which has taken place years and even decades before is compounded when a record of the trial is not preserved, 1 making it virtually impossible to discern what statements were made by the witnesses or objections that were made by counsel. Petitions for habeas corpus filed many years after a conviction result in inherent difficulties which are not present in similar petitions which are timely filed. As Justice O'Connor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunns
... ... ," especially since defendant has already served 20 months in State prison. The indictment will be dismissed ... We must dismiss ... Citing to Downum, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated, "[i]f the prosecutor is in some way responsible ... ...
-
Rippo v. State
...workable [criminal justice] system dictates that there must exist a time when a criminal conviction is final." Groesbeck v. Warden, 100 Nev. 259, 261, 679 P.2d 1268, 1269 (1984)(explaining consideration behind decision to restrict postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus before ena......
-
Pellegrini v. State
...this court had already recognized similar restrictions on the ability to file delayed habeas petitions. See Groesbeck v. Warden, 100 Nev. 259, 679 P.2d 1268 (1984). 31. See 1985 Nev. Stat., ch. 435, § 10, at 32. 1987 Nev. Stat., ch. 539, § 3, at 1209. This amendment, which was codified at N......
-
Trujillo v. State
...to convictions long since final. See Jackson v. State, 115 Nev. 21, 23 n. 2, 973 P.2d 241, 242 n. 2 (1999); Groesbeck v. Warden, 100 Nev. 259, 261, 679 P.2d 1268, 1269 (1984). Given these concerns, we hold that any error that was reasonably available to be raised while the petitioner was in......