Leavitt v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Nevada?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Nevada. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In 2015, more than twenty-five years after remittitur issued from Appellant’s direct appeal in 1989, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was both successive and untimely filed. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the petition was procedurally barred and that Appellant failed to demonstrate the good cause and prejudice required for consideration of the petition. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to consider his good cause argument regarding Riley v. McDaniel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even assuming that Riley would provide good cause, Appellant did not establish prejudice because he did not demonstrate that the result of trial would have been different had a different instruction been given.
Download PDF
• • 132 Nev., Advance Opinion 03 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA TODD MITCHELL LEAVITT, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 69218 FILED DEC 2 9 2016 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLE F UPREME COURT BY ' DEPUTY CLE Appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge. Affirmed. Todd Mitchell Leavitt, Indian Springs, in Pro Se. Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent. BEFORE PARRAGUIRRE, C.J., HARDESTY and PICKERING, JJ. OPINION1 PER CURIAM: Appellant Todd Mitchell Leavitt filed his postconviction petition on October. 20, 2015, more than 25 years after remittitur issued 1 We previously issued our decision in this matter in an unpublished order. Cause appearing, we grant respondent's motion to reissue the order as an opinion, see NRAP 37(f), and issue this opinion in place of our prior order. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A (911 014> , t frit I (0 1039 (o a ;l from his direct appeal in 1989. Leavitt v. State, Docket No. 19493 (Order Dismissing Appeal, September 28, 1989). 2 Thus, the petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). The petition was also successive pursuant to NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2) because Leavitt had previously sought postconviction relief. Leavitt v. State, Docket No. 28987 (Order Dismissing Appeal, February 10,1999); Leavitt v. State, Docket No. 50438 (Order of Affirmance, April 18, 2008). Accordingly, the petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b), (3). The district court concluded that Leavitt failed to demonstrate good cause and prejudice and denied his petition. Leavitt contends that the district court erred by failing to consider his good cause argument regarding Riley v. McDaniel, 786 F.3d 719, 721 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that it was error to give the instruction referenced in Kazalyn v. State, 108 Nev. 67, 825 P.2d 578 (1992), in trials conducted before Powell v. State, 108 Nev. 700, 838 P.2d 921 (1992), or after Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 994 P.2d 700 (2000)), cert. denied, 577 U.S. , 136 S. Ct. 1450 (2016). Although Leavitt cited Riley in his petition, he did not discuss Riley's holding or apply it to his case. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by failing to consider Riley and by denying the petition. As a separate• and independent ground for denying relief, we also conclude that the district court did not err by denying Leavitt's petition because we do not agree with Riley and therefore it would not provide good cause. See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1289, 198 P.3d 839, The petition was filed more than 22 years after the effective date of MRS 34.726 on January 1, 1993. 2 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ADP 2 851 (2008) (discussing the history of Nevada law on the phrase "willful, deliberate, and premeditated," including Hem v. State, 97 Nev. 529, 635 P.2d 280 (1981), and explaining that prior to Byford this court had not required separate definitions of the terms and had instead viewed them as together conveying a meaning that was sufficiently described by the definition of "premeditation" eventually approved in Kazalyn and Powell). But even assuming that Riley would provide good cause, Leavitt did not establish prejudice because he did not demonstrate that the result of trial would have been different had a different instruction been given. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district c .3 Parraguirre Hardesty Pickering 3 Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See NRAP 34(0(3). We have excluded from our consideration any claims raised for the first time on appeal. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA «» 1947A e 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
