| Docket Entries |
| Date | Type | Description | Pending? | Document |
| 10/10/2001 | Filing Fee | Filing Fee Waived. | | |
| 10/10/2001 | Notice of Appeal Documents | Filed Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. (Docketing statement mailed to counsel for appellant.) | | 01-17093
|
| 11/26/2001 | Docketing Statement | Filed Docketing Statement. | | 01-19707
|
| 11/28/2001 | Transcript Request | Filed Certificate of No Transcript Request. | | 01-19874
|
| 12/17/2001 | Motion | Filed Motion to Consolidate. The State of Nevada's and Richard Haberstroh's Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals; Joint Request that Haberstroh Continue to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Joint Request that Appeal be Heard on the Original Record without Reproduction. Nos. 38404 and 38600. | | 01-21220
|
| 01/11/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order/Motion Granted in Part. On December 17, 2001, the parties to these appeals filed a joint motion seeking this court's approval of a stipulation relating to the manner in which these appeals will proceed in this court. The parties' stipulation respecting the consolidation of these matters is approved. The clerk of this court shall consolidate these appeals for all appellate purposes. The State shall be deemed the appellant and Haberstroh shall be deemed the cross-appellant. Haberstroh shall have to and including February 4, 2002, to file and serve a brief containing the issues and argument involved in his appeal, as well as the answer to the State's opening brief that was filed on December 4, 2001. fn1[A second stipulation was filed in this court on December 28, 2001, in docket No. 38404, extending the due date for Haberstrouh's brief until February 4, 2002. This court entered an order on that same date approving the stipulation.] Thereafter, briefing shall proceed in accordance with NRAP 28, 30, 31, and 32. It appears that in the proceedings below the district court permitted Haberstroh to proceed in forma pauperis with the Federal Public Defender as his counsel. Thus Haberstroh, with the Federal Public Defender as his appellate counsel of record, may proceed in this court in forma pauperis without further application or order of this court. The parties stipulation is hereby disapproved to the extent that it seeks an order of this court directing the district court to transmit the original record on appeal and allowing this appeal to proceed on the original record without the necessity of reproducing parts thereof in an appendix. Pursuant to SCR 250(7), the parties shall file an appendix or appendices as specified in the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. fn3[The State previously filed an eight volume appendix along with its opening brief in Docket No. 38404 on December 4, 2001. Nos. 38404/38600. (02-00818) | | |
| 02/04/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion to Extend Time. Motion to Enlarge Time to File Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Answering Brief and Cross-Appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-02219) | | |
| 02/08/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. filed February 4, 2002. Respondent/cross-appellant shall have until March 6, 2002, to file and serve a single, combined answering brief on appeal and opening brief on cross-appeal. Nos. 38404/38600. (02-02558) | | |
| 03/06/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion to Extend Time. Motion to Enlarge Time to File Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Answering Brief and Opening Brief of the Cross-Appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-04100). | | |
| 03/11/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. filed March 6, 2002. Respondent/cross-appellant shall have until March 15, 2002, to file and serve a single, combined answering brief on appeal and opening brief on cross-appeal. Thereafter, briefing shall proceed in accordance with NRAP 28, 30, 31 and 32. Nos. 38404/38600. (02-04349) | | |
| 03/15/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion for Excess Pages. Motion Pursuant to NRAP 28(G) to Permit Respondent/Cross-Appellant Richard Haberstroh to File an Answering Brief to the Appellant's Opening Brief/Opening Brief of the Cross-Appeal in a length greater than thirty pages. Nos. 38404/38600. | | |
| 03/15/2002 | Brief | Received Answering Brief. Respondent and Cross-Appellant Haberstroh's Answering Brief and Opening Brief on Cross-Appeal. Mailed on: 3/13/02. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-04750). | | |
| 03/15/2002 | Appendix | Filed Appendix to Answering Brief. Respondent and Cross-Appellant Haberstroh's Appendix, Vols. 1 through 43. Nos. 38404/38600. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-04751). | | |
| 03/18/2002 | Appendix | Filed Appendix to Answering Brief. Vols. 44 - 52. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-04802). | | |
| 03/22/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. of Richard Haberstroh (respondent) filed March 15, 2002. The clerk of this court shall file the 48-page combinded answering brief on appeal and opening brief on cross-appeal received on March 15, 2002. Nos. 38404/38600. (02-05121) | | |
| 03/22/2002 | Brief | Filed Answering Brief. Respondent and Cross-Appellant Haberstroh's Answering Brief and Opening Brief on Cross-Appeal. Mailed on: 03/13/02. Signed by: Michael Pescetta and Elizabeth Brickfield. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-04750). | | |
| 04/19/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion to Extend Time. Nos. 38404/38600. (02-06970) | | |
| 05/06/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. of State of Nevada filed April 19, 2002. The State of Nevada shall have until June 3, 2002, to file and serve the combined reply brief on appeal and answering brief on cross-appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 | | |
| 06/05/2002 | Brief | Filed Reply Brief. Appellant's Reply Brief and Cross-Respondent's Answering Brief (The State of Nevada). Mailed on: Express-No postmark. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-09774). | | |
| 06/27/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion to Extend Time. Respondent and Cross-Appellant Haberstroh's Motion to Enlarge Time to File Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief to the Cross-Appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-11104). | | |
| 07/09/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. filed June 27, 2002. Respondents/cross-appellant shall have until September 3, 2002, to file and serve the reply brief on cross-appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-11650). | | |
| 08/30/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion to Extend Time. Respondent and Cross-Appellant Haberstroth's Motion to Enlarge Time to File Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Reply Brief to the Cross-Appeal. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-15065). | | |
| 09/10/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Granting Motion. filed August 29, 2002. Respondent/Cross-Appellant Haberstroh shall have until October 3, 2002, to file and serve the reply brief on cross-appeal. Nos. 38404/38600. [02-15647] | | |
| 10/07/2002 | Brief | Filed Reply Brief on Cross-Appeal. Mailed on: 10/03/02. Nos. 38404/38600 (02-17321). | | |
| 10/07/2002 | Case Status Update | Submitted for Decision. | | |
| 10/24/2002 | Motion | Filed Motion. Request for Oral Argument. Nos. 38404/38600 [02-18432] | | |
| 12/10/2002 | Notice/Outgoing | Issued Notice Scheduling Oral Argument. Oral Argument is scheduled for 60 minutes in Carson City on February 11, 2003, at 11:00 a.m. (En Banc) (Nos. 38404/38600) | | |
| 01/27/2003 | Notice/Outgoing | Issued Oral Argument Reminder Notice. Nos. 38404/38600 | | |
| 02/11/2003 | Case Status Update | Submitted for Decision. Before the En Banc Court. EN BANC. Nos. 38404/38600. | | |
| 05/30/2003 | Opinion/Dispositional | Filed Authored Opinion. "Affirmed." Before the Court EN BANC. Author: Rose, J. We concur: Agosti, C.J., Shearing and Maupin, JJ. Leavitt, J., with whom Becker and Gibbons, JJ., agree, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 119 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 23. EN BANC. Nos. 38404/38600.
06/09/03 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, PAGES 5 AND 6. NOS. 38404/38600. | | 03-09013
|
| 06/04/2003 | Letter/Incoming | Filed Letter. from Michael Pescetta, Assistant Federal Public Defender regarding the opinion filed on May 30, 2003. Nos. 38404/38600 (03-09333). | | |
| 06/09/2003 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order. Modifying Majority Opinion. On May 30, 2003, this court issued an opinion in these consolidated appeals that admonished counsel for respondent/appellant Richard Haberstroh for filing an appendix containing extensive irrelevant material. The majority opinion mentioned Assistant Federal Public Defenders Michael Pescetta and Elizabeth Brickfield by name. Pescetta requests that this court removed any references to Brickfield in the portion of the majority opinion that addresses the appendices. We grant Pescetta's request. We direct the clerk of this court to modify the majority opinion by removing any references to attorney Brickfield on pages 5 and 6 of the majority opinion and by making other necessary corrections to the form of related nouns and pronouns to accommodate that change. Specifically, the first three sentences in the last full paragraph on page 5 of the majority opinion should now read as follows: As a preliminary matter, we admonish Haberstroh's attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Michael Pescetta, for filing an appendix containing extensive irrelevant material. Pescetta filed an appendix of 52 volumes and 11,384 pages. In his briefs to this court, however, he did not cite to even a single page in 22 of the volumes, and for most of the other volumes, he cited to only a few pages out of an entire volume. Additionally, the second full paragraph on page 6 of the majority opinion should now read as follows: "We therefore admonish Pescetta for filing an appendix which grossly violates NRAP 39(b) and caution him that we will consider sanctions for similar conduct in the future." EN BANC-DA/MS/RR/WM. Nos. 38404/38600. (03-09561) | | |
| 06/18/2003 | Post-Judgment Petition | Filed Petition for Rehearing. Nos. 38404/38600 [03-10157] | | |
| 08/29/2003 | Post-Judgment Order | Filed Order/Rehearing Denied. "The State's petition for rehearing is denied." fn1[The State's reading of our opinion in this case is mistaken. First, we did not consider mitigating evidence not presented curing the trial in concluding that the invalid finding of depravity of mind was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, we did not hold, and have never held, that all aggravators involving the circumstances of a murder must be treated as only on aggravator. But in any case, as the opinion indicates, the number of found aggravators does not determine the weight of the aggravating evidence: a low number of aggravators does not necessarily mean a slight weight any more than a high number necessarily means a great weight.] NRAP 40(c). EN BANC. Nos. 38404/38600. | | 03-14571
|
| 09/23/2003 | Remittitur | Issued Remittitur. | | 03-14608
|
| 09/23/2003 | Case Status Update | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. | | |
| 10/02/2003 | Remittitur | Filed Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on September 25, 2003. | | 03-14608
|