Jerry Flores v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the rule against successive petitions applies to 28 Rule 59(e) motions in the habeas context only when the motion raises entirely new claims
• determining that the petitioner’s collateral 20 attacks were procedurally barred after finding the petitioner had knowingly, intelligently, 21 and voluntarily plead guilty to the alleged crimes
• explaining that Tollett bars 8 any double jeopardy claim where petitioner pleaded guilty unless petitioner 9 alleges and proves that plea was not knowing and voluntary
• holding failure to obtain appellate authorization for successive petition is jurisdictional
• observing that Faretta is silent on whether a defendant who has waived his right to counsel is entitled to a second Faretta 2 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e canvass on remand
• “A petitioner's failure to seek such authorization from the appropriate appellate court before filing a second or successive habeas petition acts as a jurisdictional bar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).