Garcia (Evaristo) v. Director, 80255

Background

Appellant Evaristo Jonathan Garcia was convicted of killing a 15‑year‑old near a high school and later filed post‑conviction habeas petitions. The instant filing was an untimely successive petition.
After his first post‑conviction petition, Garcia discovered Clark County School District Police Department (CCSDPD) records that the State had not disclosed. Those records showed a witness’s initial description matched her later descriptions and that CCSDPD officers briefly detained then released a person near the scene after the witness said he was not the shooter.
Garcia argued the undisclosed CCSDPD records established a Brady violation (exculpatory/impeaching evidence) and therefore showed good cause to excuse the successive, untimely petition. The State conceded CCSDPD was a law‑enforcement agency and that it had constructive knowledge of CCSDPD evidence.
The district court denied Garcia’s successive petition as procedurally barred because he failed to establish the required good‑cause showing under Brady. The Supreme Court reviewed the Brady claim de novo.
The Supreme Court held Garcia satisfied the withholding prong but failed to show materiality — the suppressed evidence would not have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome given fingerprints on the gun, eyewitness identifications, an admission, and limited impeachment value of the records — and therefore affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia established good cause to overcome the successive‑petition bar by proving a Brady violation	Garcia: undisclosed CCSDPD records were favorable, withheld by the State, and material (would impeach witness/create reasonable probability of different result)	State: CCSDPD records were known only to police but not material; other strong evidence of guilt remained	Held: State conceded withholding and police involvement, but Garcia failed Brady’s materiality prong; no good cause; petition procedurally barred
Whether CCSDPD evidence imputed constructive knowledge to the State	Garcia: CCSDPD was a law‑enforcement agency whose evidence is chargeable to the prosecution	State: conceded CCSDPD is law enforcement and that constructive knowledge applies	Held: Court accepted constructive knowledge finding (State charged with CCSDPD evidence)
Whether the suppressed records were material under Brady (reasonable probability of different outcome)	Garcia: the records would have bolstered impeachment and suggested alternative suspect, creating reasonable probability of different result	State: fingerprints on gun, eyewitness testimony, and an admission made result certain; the records’ impeachment value was minimal	Held: Records were not material; did not create reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether the district court violated separation‑of‑powers by adopting the State’s proposed order verbatim	Garcia: district court adopted State’s proposed order and thus violated separation of powers and Garcia’s rights	State: district court did not adopt the State’s proposed order verbatim and EDCR 7.21 permits submission of draft orders by prevailing party	Held: Claim lacked merit; record shows district court did not verbatim adopt State’s draft and procedure complied with EDCR 7.21

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor charged with knowledge of favorable evidence known to other government agents)
Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867 (discusses limits of Brady when evidence known only to police investigators)
State v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 589 (Nevada law on constructive knowledge and materiality standards for Brady disclosures)
Mazzan v. Warden, Ely State Prison, 116 Nev. 48 (explains materiality and impeachment value under Nevada law)
State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 (Nevada Supreme Court reviews district court Brady determinations de novo)