Hoffman v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 59949.,59949.
• Parties: Douglas Raymond HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

381 P.3d 621 (Table)

Douglas Raymond HOFFMAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 59949.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Dec. 13, 2012.

Christopher R. Oram

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant Douglas Raymond Hoffman's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Judge.

Hoffman contends that the district court erred by not finding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) investigate and establish a viable defense, (2) present medical evidence indicating that he was physically incapable of committing the charged crime, and (3) object to inadmissible hearsay. Hoffman claims that the cumulative effect of trial and appellate counsel's errors requires the reversal of his conviction. Hoffman also claims that he is actually innocent and the district court erred by ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider his petition on the merits because his sentence expired prior to the filing of his petition. We conclude that Hoffman is not entitled to relief.¹

“[A] district court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus if the post-conviction petitioner filed the petition challenging the validity of a conviction after having completed the sentence for the challenged conviction.” Jackson v. State, 115 Nev. 21, 23, 973 P.2d 241, 242 (1999) ; see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6 (1); NRS 34.360 ; NRS 34.724(1) (“Any person convicted of a crime and under sentence of death or imprisonment who claims that the conviction was obtained, or that the sentence was imposed, in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this State ... may ... file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”). Here, Hoffman filed his petition more than a month after the expiration of his sentence and his claim that he meets the “in custody” requirement because he still owes over $245,000 in restitution is without merit. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491–92 (1989) (addressing federal “in custody” requirements necessary for filing habeas...