NRS
34.820 Procedure in cases where petitioner has been sentenced to death.
1. If a petitioner has been sentenced to
death and the petition is the first one challenging the validity of the
petitioner’s judgment of conviction or sentence, the court shall:
(a) Appoint counsel to represent the petitioner;
and
(b) Stay execution of the judgment pending
disposition of the petition and the appeal.
2. The petition must include the date upon
which execution is scheduled, if it has been scheduled. The petitioner is not
entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the petition states that:
(a) Each issue of fact to be considered at the
hearing has not been determined in any prior evidentiary hearing in a state or
federal court; or
(b) For each issue of fact which has been
determined in a prior evidentiary hearing, the hearing was not a full and fair
consideration of the issue. The petition must specify all respects in which the
hearing was inadequate.
3. If the petitioner has previously filed
a petition for relief or for a stay of the execution in the same court, the
petition must be assigned to the judge or justice who considered the previous
matter.
4. The court shall inform the petitioner
and the petitioner’s counsel that all claims which challenge the judgment of
conviction or imposition of the sentence must be joined in a single petition
and that any matter not included in the petition will not be considered in a
subsequent proceeding.
5. If relief is granted or the execution
is stayed, the clerk shall forthwith notify the respondent and the prosecuting
agency.
6. If a district judge conducts an
evidentiary hearing, a daily transcript must be prepared for the purpose of
appellate review.
7. The judge or justice who considers a
petition filed by a petitioner who has been sentenced to death shall make all
reasonable efforts to expedite the matter and shall render a decision within 60
days after submission of the matter for decision.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
1232; A 1987,
1219; 1991,
87; 2023,
1632)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018).
Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Rippo filed a timely postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on December 4, 1998, which was supplemented twice (on August 8, 2002, and February 10, 2004).”
Colwell v. State, 59 P.3d 463 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Colwell therefore argues that NRS 34.820 required Judge Porter to hear his instant petition.”
McKague v. Whitley, 912 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 4× “[5] NRS 34.820(1)(a) mandates that counsel be appointed in a petitioner's first post-conviction proceeding when a petitioner is under sentence of death.”
Crump v. Warden, 934 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 3× “[ 3 ] We then concluded that since McKague filed his first post-conviction petition prior to the enactment of NRS 34.820, that statute and its “concomitant right to effective assistance of counsel” did not apply to him.”
Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001).
“NRS 34.820(1) now provides for mandatory appointment of counsel for the first post-conviction petition challenging the validity of conviction or sentence where the petitioner has been sentenced to death.”
Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 6× “8 See NRS 34.820(1)(a) (mandating the appointment of postconviction counsel if the "petitioner has been sentenced to death and the petition is the first one challenging the validity of the petitioner's conviction or sentence" (emphasis added)).”
Mazzan v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 921 P.2d 920 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 34.820(l)(a) now provides such a statutory right in certain cases: “If a petitioner has been sentenced to death and the petition is the first one challenging the validity of the petitioner’s conviction or sentence, the court shall: (a) Appoint counsel to represent the…”
Gregory Bolin v. Renee Baker, 994 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2021).
“See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 34.820 (1)(a). The state district court denied Bolin’s petition in 2005, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed in 2007.”
McNelton v. State, 990 P.2d 1263 (Nev. 1999).
“’s office, or any conflict because McNelton’s attorney Drew Christensen formed a partnership with the prosecutor, Rex Bell, shortly after trial; (c) failure to raise the above issues; (d) failure to challenge this court’s failure to meaningfully review this case on appeal…”
Moore v. State, 417 P.3d 356 (Nev. 2018).
“*361 Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel Moore contends that he demonstrated good cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural bars because postconviction counsel was ineffective.”
Rogers v. State, 267 P.3d 802 (Nev. 2011).
“750(1) provides for the discretionary appointment of post-conviction counsel and sets forth the following factors that the court may consider in making its determination to appoint counsel: the petitioner’s indigency, the severity of the consequences to the petitioner, the…”
Beets v. State, 871 P.2d 357 (Nev. 1994).
“810 provide for the manner in which the district court decides a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.820(1) — 21 cases
Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001).
“NRS 34.820(1) now provides for mandatory appointment of counsel for the first post-conviction petition challenging the validity of conviction or sentence where the petitioner has been sentenced to death.”
Moore v. State, 417 P.3d 356 (Nev. 2018).
“*361 Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel Moore contends that he demonstrated good cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural bars because postconviction counsel was ineffective.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.820(1)(a) — 12 cases
Rippo v. State, 423 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2018).
“Rippo filed a timely postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on December 4, 1998, which was supplemented twice (on August 8, 2002, and February 10, 2004).”
McKague v. Whitley, 912 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1996).
“[5] NRS 34.820(1)(a) mandates that counsel be appointed in a petitioner's first post-conviction proceeding when a petitioner is under sentence of death.”
Chappell (james) v. State (death Penalty-pc), 2021 NV 83 (Nev. 2021).
“8 See NRS 34.820(1)(a) (mandating the appointment of postconviction counsel if the "petitioner has been sentenced to death and the petition is the first one challenging the validity of the petitioner's conviction or sentence" (emphasis added)).”
Crump v. Warden, 934 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1997).
“[ 3 ] We then concluded that since McKague filed his first post-conviction petition prior to the enactment of NRS 34.820, that statute and its “concomitant right to effective assistance of counsel” did not apply to him.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.820(3) — 1 case
Colwell v. State, 59 P.3d 463 (Nev. 2002).
“Colwell therefore argues that NRS 34.820 required Judge Porter to hear his instant petition.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.820(4) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.820(l)(a) — 4 cases
McKague v. Whitley, 912 P.2d 255 (Nev. 1996).
“[5] NRS 34.820(1)(a) mandates that counsel be appointed in a petitioner's first post-conviction proceeding when a petitioner is under sentence of death.”
Mazzan v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 921 P.2d 920 (Nev. 1996).
“NRS 34.820(l)(a) now provides such a statutory right in certain cases: “If a petitioner has been sentenced to death and the petition is the first one challenging the validity of the petitioner’s conviction or sentence, the court shall: (a) Appoint counsel to represent the…”
Crump v. Warden, 934 P.2d 247 (Nev. 1997).
“[ 3 ] We then concluded that since McKague filed his first post-conviction petition prior to the enactment of NRS 34.820, that statute and its “concomitant right to effective assistance of counsel” did not apply to him.”
McNelton v. State, 990 P.2d 1263 (Nev. 1999).
“’s office, or any conflict because McNelton’s attorney Drew Christensen formed a partnership with the prosecutor, Rex Bell, shortly after trial; (c) failure to raise the above issues; (d) failure to challenge this court’s failure to meaningfully review this case on appeal…”
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.