Kou Lo Vang v. State of Nevada

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that NRS 34.810(b)(2) (barring postconviction review of claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a 22 prior petition) was well-established as an independent and adequate procedural bar for non- capital cases
• noting that procedural bar is subject to waiver by the state
• holding § 34.810 to be an adequate and 2 Nevada has cause-and-prejudice and fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice 3 exceptions to its procedural bars that are substantially the same as the federal standards. 4 See Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1052 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004
• A state procedural bar is “independent” if the 9 state court specifically invokes the procedural rule as a basis for its decision.
• “Generally, the state 4 must assert the procedural default as a defense to the petition before the district court; 5 otherwise the defense is waived. However, the district court retains discretion to consider 6 the issue sua sponte if the circumstances warrant.”
• declining 24 to apply the procedural bar

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).