Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7254,7254 |
| Citation | 91 Nev. 314,535 P.2d 797 |
| Parties | Franklin L. HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant was charged with murder in early 1965. Before his plea was entered, his counsel requested a psychiatric examination. Upon receipt of a verbal report from the examining psychiatrist, a plea of not guilty was entered. Shortly thereafter, appellant changed his plea to guilty of second degree murder. Sentencing was delayed so that the trial judge could obtain a written report from the examining psychiatrist. On May 21, 1965, the trial judge had the report and referred to it while imposing a sentence of not less than 10 nor more than 50 years in the Nevada State Prison.
In his petition for post-conviction relief appellant contended that his plea of guilty was involuntarily made because he was mentally incompetent at that time to enter such a plea, and that the trial court erred in its failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of his competency. After a hearing, his petition for post-conviction relief was denied and this appeal ensued.
Although appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of NRS 177.335 1 and identify previous court proceedings taken by him to secure relief from his conviction and sentence, our records indicate that for the second time this matter is before us. A detailed recitation of the facts of this case together with an addendum of the transcript of the proceedings in district court at the time appellant was sentenced on May 21, 1965, appear in Hall v. Warden, 83 Nev. 446, 434 P.2d 425 (1967). When the matter was previously before us, one of the issues raised was the voluntariness of appellant's plea. Upon that record we determined that appellant's guilty plea was made as a result of the 'intelligent application of his own will to the problem,' and that 'the record fails to support appellant's contention that his change of plea was not voluntarily made.' 83 Nev. at 455, 456, 434 P.2d at 431.
'The law of a first appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals in which the facts are substantially the same.' Walker v. State, 85 Nev. 337, 343, 455 P.2d 34, 38 (1969); Graves v. State, 84 Nev. 262, 439 P.2d 476 (1968); State v. Loveless, 62 Nev. 312, 150 P.2d 1015 (1944).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leslie v. Warden
... 59 P.3d 440 118 Nev. 773 Wilbert Emory LESLIE, Appellant, . v. . Warden, Ely State Prison, E.K. McDaniel, Respondent. . No. 36546. . Supreme Court of Nevada. . December 18, 2002. . 59 P.3d 442 Patti & Sgro and ... Leslie, 114 Nev. at 18-19, 952 P.2d at 973-974 . The doctrine of the law of the case precludes reconsideration. Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975) . . 8. See Williams v. State, 113 Nev. 1008, 1020, 945 P.2d 438, 445 (1997), ......
-
Nelson v. McDaniel, 3:09-cv-00742-RCJ-VPC
...to claims raised on direct appeal, and therefore were barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. (Id.) (citing Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975)). The Court further found all remaining claims barred as second or successive pursuant to NRS 34.810(1). (Id.). Petiti......
-
Rippo v. State
...1017, 1023–24 (1997). Normally, the law-of-the-case doctrine would preclude further litigation of this issue. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975). Rippo argues, however, that the doctrine should not apply because the facts are substantially different than they were......
-
Nelson v. McDaniel
...to claims raised on direct appeal, and therefore were barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. (Id.) (citing Halt v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975)). The Court further found all remaining claims barred as second or successive pursuant to NRS 34.810(1). (Id.). Petiti......