Carr v. Dzurenada, 3:20-cv-00030

Petitioner pleaded guilty (Mar. 3, 2015) to possession/ownership of a firearm by a prohibited person; plea agreement allowed the prosecution to seek habitual‑criminal treatment if petitioner failed to appear for future hearings.
Petitioner missed a scheduled sentencing in August 2015; a bench warrant issued and he later returned in October 2016; the prosecution filed a notice seeking habitual‑criminal punishment on October 17, 2016.
Sentencing was continued to comply with Nevada law’s notice period and on November 7, 2016 the state court adjudicated petitioner a "small" habitual criminal and sentenced him to 5–15 years; petitioner did not appeal.
Petitioner filed two state post‑conviction habeas petitions; both were denied (second petition deemed untimely and successive by the Nevada Court of Appeals).
Petitioner filed the federal §2254 petition (mailed Dec. 9, 2019) asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for requesting/allowing the continuance that allegedly permitted the prosecution to seek habitual treatment.
The district court granted IFP, denied appointment of counsel, reviewed the petition on the merits (noting it may be untimely or procedurally defaulted), denied habeas relief, and refused a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance re: continuance → habitual‑criminal classification	Counsel requested/allowed the continuance, which allegedly enabled the prosecution to file the habitual notice and led to harsher sentence	Prosecution had an unqualified right under the plea agreement once petitioner failed to appear; Nevada law requires at least 15 days after filing before sentencing, so sentencing could not have occurred earlier	Denied — no prejudice; sentencing delay was required by law once the habitual notice was filed, so counsel’s continuance did not cause the outcome
Timeliness / procedural default of federal petition	Petition should be considered on the merits	Respondents assert the petition may be untimely and/or procedurally defaulted	Court declined to resolve these defenses and denied the petition on the merits instead
Appointment of counsel	Petitioner requested counsel for habeas proceedings	Respondents: appointment unnecessary for a dismissible claim	Denied — petition dismissed on the merits, so counsel not appointed
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Petitioner seeks COA to appeal denial	Respondents oppose COA	Denied — reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment debatable

McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (recognizes the right to effective assistance of counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)