Regala v. State, 111519 NVSC, 75349

Docket Nº:75349
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS, C.J.
Party Name:JOSEPH TARIN REGALA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judge Panel:SILVER, J. DOUGLAS, J, Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

JOSEPH TARIN REGALA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 75349

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS, C.J.

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.

Appellant Joseph Regala filed his petition on May 8, 2014, more than three years after the remittitur issued from his direct appeal on January 4, 2011. Regala v. State, Docket No. 54974 (Order of Affirmance, December 10, 2010). Thus, Regala's petition was untimely filed and procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and undue prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1). The district court found good cause and i prejudice to overcome the procedural bar, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and denied the petition on the merits.1

Regala contends that trial counsel should have challenged his competency to stand trial. He asserts that his history of mental health issues, unusual behavior at trial, a finding of incompetency in another case several months after the trial, and a psychologist's testimony during this postconviction proceeding established his incompetency at the time of trial. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's conclusion that trial counsel did not perform deficiently. See Strickland v., Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (requiring a petitioner show that (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness (deficient performance) and (2) a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel's deficient performance (prejudice)); Warden u. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting test in Strickland). Generally, a competency hearing is warranted when there is a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency-whether the defendant is able to understand the charges and the nature and purpose of the i proceedings and to assist counsel. See NRS 178.400(2); Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 179-80, 660 P.2d 109, 113; see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). The record shows...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP