Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810 (2026)

Additional reasons for dismissal of petition

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 34.810 Additional reasons for dismissal of petition.

1. The court shall dismiss a petition that challenges the validity of a judgment of conviction or sentence if the court determines that:

(a) The petitioner’s conviction was upon a plea of guilty or guilty but mentally ill and the petition is not based upon an allegation that the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that the plea was entered without effective assistance of counsel.

(b) The petitioner’s conviction was the result of a trial and the grounds for the petition could have been:

(1) Presented to the trial court;

(2) Raised in a direct appeal or a prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus or postconviction relief; or

(3) Raised in any other proceeding that the petitioner has taken to secure relief from the petitioner’s judgment of conviction and sentence,

Ê unless the court finds both cause for the failure to present the grounds and actual prejudice to the petitioner.

2. The court shall dismiss a petition that challenges the computation of time served pursuant to a judgment of conviction without prejudice if the court determines that the petitioner did not exhaust all available administrative remedies to resolve such a challenge as required by NRS 34.724.

3. A second or successive petition must be dismissed if the judge or justice determines that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and that the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge or justice finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ.

4. Pursuant to subsections 1 and 3, the petitioner has the burden of pleading and proving specific facts that demonstrate:

(a) Good cause for the petitioner’s failure to present the claim or for presenting the claim again; and

(b) Actual prejudice to the petitioner.

Ê The petitioner shall include in the petition all prior proceedings in which the petitioner challenged the same judgment of conviction or sentence.

5. The court may dismiss a petition that fails to include any prior proceedings of which the court has knowledge through the record of the court or through the pleadings submitted by the respondent.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 1232; A 1989, 457; 1995, 2465; 2003, 1478; 2007, 1435; 2019, 3009; 2023, 1631)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 649 cases (143 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 32× “He further argued that application of the procedural bars provided in NRS 34.810 would violate his right to due process because this court has inconsistently applied those bars in reviewing appeals from other post-conviction petitions.”

Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 32× “DISCUSSION The petition at issue raised claims for relief based on trial error, prosecutorial misconduct and failure to disclose evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel,…”

Gonzales (melvin) Vs. State, 2021 NV 40 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 42× “SupREme COURT OF NEVADA 3 t947A " DISCUSSION NRS 34.810 does not bar claims that counsel was ineffective at sentencing Gonzales challenges the district coures determination that NRS 34.”

State v. Bennett, 81 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 22× “726; NRS 34.810. [13] See NRS 34.810; Pellegrini, 117 Nev.”

State v. Haberstroh, 69 P.3d 676 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 20× “[6] However, the Legislature abrogated this part of Phelps a year later by adding subsections three and four to NRS 34.810 and amending former NRS 34.740.”

Nika v. State, 198 P.3d 839 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 12× “See NRS 34.810( l )(b). Nika argues that even if Geary was not the law at the time of his trial, he should have been given the benefit of that decision on direct appeal.”

McKague v. Whitley, 912 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 14× “NRS 34.810 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 8× “726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

Mitchell v. State, 149 P.3d 33 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 10× “Thus, whether Sharma 's rule is considered procedural or substantive, it would be retroactive. [26] Clem II, 119 Nev. at 620, 81 P.”

Evans v. State, 28 P.3d 498 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 6× “If first-time applicants for post-conviction habeas relief fail to argue specifically that their trial or appellate counsel were ineffective in regard to an issue or to show good cause for failing to raise the issue before, that issue will not be considered, pursuant to NRS…”

Bejarano v. State, 146 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 8× “NRS 34.810(1)(b) provides that a post-conviction habeas petition must be dismissed where the defendant's conviction was the result of a trial and his claims could have been raised either before the trial court, on direct appeal, in a previous petition, or in any other proceeding.”

Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 33× “726(1) or NRS 34.810, a petitioner "cannot rely on conclusory claims for relief but must provide supporting specific factual allegations that if true would entitle him to relief.”

Show all 649 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1) — 13 cases

Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). “He further argued that application of the procedural bars provided in NRS 34.810 would violate his right to due process because this court has inconsistently applied those bars in reviewing appeals from other post-conviction petitions.”

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). “726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

Kirksey v. State, 923 P.2d 1102 (Nev. 1996).

Boatwright v. Dir., Dep't of Prison, 849 P.2d 274 (Nev. 1993).

State v. Dist. Ct., 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(13) — 1 case

Oliver (Anthony) v. State (Nev. 2015).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(2) — 1 case

Mulder v. Renee Baker (D. Nev. 2021).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(3)(2) — 2 cases

Ford (Charles) Vs. State (Nev. 2021).

Walker (James) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc) (Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(a) — 65 cases

Gonzales (melvin) Vs. State, 2021 NV 40 (Nev. 2021). “SupREme COURT OF NEVADA 3 t947A " DISCUSSION NRS 34.810 does not bar claims that counsel was ineffective at sentencing Gonzales challenges the district coures determination that NRS 34.”

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). “726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006).

State v. Dist. Ct., 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005).

Passanisi v. Dir., Nevada Dep't of Prisons, 769 P.2d 72 (Nev. 1989).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(b) — 246 cases

Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018). “DISCUSSION The petition at issue raised claims for relief based on trial error, prosecutorial misconduct and failure to disclose evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel,…”

Nika v. State, 198 P.3d 839 (Nev. 2008). “See NRS 34.810( l )(b). Nika argues that even if Geary was not the law at the time of his trial, he should have been given the benefit of that decision on direct appeal.”

Lara v. State, 87 P.3d 528 (Nev. 2004).

Mitchell v. State, 149 P.3d 33 (Nev. 2006). “Thus, whether Sharma 's rule is considered procedural or substantive, it would be retroactive. [26] Clem II, 119 Nev. at 620, 81 P.”

Moore v. State, 417 P.3d 356 (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(b)(1) — 1 case

Lobato (Kirstin) v. State (Nev. 2016).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(b)(2) — 155 cases

Mitchell v. State, 149 P.3d 33 (Nev. 2006). “Thus, whether Sharma 's rule is considered procedural or substantive, it would be retroactive. [26] Clem II, 119 Nev. at 620, 81 P.”

Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021). “726(1) or NRS 34.810, a petitioner "cannot rely on conclusory claims for relief but must provide supporting specific factual allegations that if true would entitle him to relief.”

Thomas (marlo) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2022 NV 37 (Nev. 2022).

Whittington v. Williams Sr (D. Nev. 2021).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(1)(b)(3) — 3 cases

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). “726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

State v. Dist. Ct., 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005).

Bingham (Doyle) v. State (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(2) — 253 cases

McKague v. Whitley, 912 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1996). “NRS 34.810 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”

State v. Haberstroh, 69 P.3d 676 (Nev. 2003). “[6] However, the Legislature abrogated this part of Phelps a year later by adding subsections three and four to NRS 34.810 and amending former NRS 34.740.”

State v. Bennett, 81 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2003). “726; NRS 34.810. [13] See NRS 34.810; Pellegrini, 117 Nev.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(3) — 262 cases

State v. Bennett, 81 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2003). “726; NRS 34.810. [13] See NRS 34.810; Pellegrini, 117 Nev.”

Mitchell v. State, 149 P.3d 33 (Nev. 2006). “Thus, whether Sharma 's rule is considered procedural or substantive, it would be retroactive. [26] Clem II, 119 Nev. at 620, 81 P.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(3)(a) — 2 cases

Brown (Kasard) v. State (Nev. 2016).

State v. Greene, 307 P.3d 322 (Nev. 2013).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(4) — 3 cases

Antonetti (Joseph) v. State (Nev. 2017).

Hall (kenya) v. Warden (Crim.) c/w 90152, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 70 (Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(b) — 2 cases

Orth v. Warden, HDSP (D. Nev. 2019).

Mortensen v. Nevens (D. Nev. 2023).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(b)(2) — 4 cases

Johnson (donte) Vs. State (death Penalty-pc), 2017 NV 73 (Nev. 2017).

Connors v. Williams, Sr. (D. Nev. 2025).

Hobson (D. Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(c) — 1 case

Taylor v. Williams (D. Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(l)(a) — 4 cases

State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 112 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2005). “726, NRS 34.810, NRS 34.800, or the law of the case previously pronounced by this court.”

Toston v. State, 267 P.3d 795 (Nev. 2011).

Hodges v. State, 78 P.3d 67 (Nev. 2003).

Standley v. Warden, 990 P.2d 783 (Nev. 1999).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(l)(b) — 15 cases

Bejarano v. State, 146 P.3d 265 (Nev. 2006). “NRS 34.810(1)(b) provides that a post-conviction habeas petition must be dismissed where the defendant's conviction was the result of a trial and his claims could have been raised either before the trial court, on direct appeal, in a previous petition, or in any other proceeding.”

Phelps v. Dir., Nevada Dep't of Prisons, 764 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1988).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(l)(b)(2) — 6 cases

Lader v. Warden, N. Nevada Corr. Ctr., 120 P.3d 1164 (Nev. 2005).

Sullivan v. State, 96 P.3d 761 (Nev. 2004).

Marshall v. State, 885 P.2d 603 (Nev. 1994).

Hernandez v. State, 194 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2008).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.810(l)(b)(3) — 2 cases

Ybarra v. Sumner, 678 F. Supp. 1480 (D. Nev. 1988).

Crump v. Warden, 934 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1997).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.