United States District Court, D. Nevada
MARK A. HANSON, Petitioner,
RENEE BAKER, et al., Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY MOTION TO RELEASE PETITIONER
(ECF NO. 192)
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
habeas corpus action, this Court granted the petitioner, Mark
A. Hanson, a conditional writ of habeas corpus on March 13,
2018. (ECF No. 180 (order); ECF No. 181 (judgment).) The
judgment was stayed pending any appeal. (Id.)
appealed, and on March 25, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment granting the writ. (ECF No.188
(Court of Appeals' Memorandum).) The Court of Appeals
ordered that this Court “shall order Hanson released
from custody within sixty days of the issuance of the
mandate, unless, within that sixty-day period, the State
files a written notice in the district court of its election
to retry Hanson, and the State thereafter, within sixty days
after the filing of that notice, actually commences
Hanson's retrial.” (Id.) The Court of
Appeals issued its mandate on April 16, 2019. (ECF No. 189.)
following day, April 17, 2019, this Court lifted the stay of
this action, and reiterated the Court of Appeals' order,
confirming that “the petitioner, Mark A. Hanson, shall
be released from custody no later than Saturday, June 15,
2019, unless, no later than that date, the State files a
written notice of its election to retry Hanson, and the State
thereafter, within sixty (60) days after the filing of that
notice, actually commences Hanson's retrial.” (ECF
No. 191 (order entered April 17, 2019).)
30, 2019, Hanson filed an “Emergency Motion to Release
Petitioner” (“Motion for Release”),
requesting an order of this Court directing the Respondents
to release Hanson from custody on or before June 15, 2019.
(ECF No. 192.) The Court set an expedited briefing schedule
regarding Hanson's motion. (ECF No. 193.) Respondents
filed a response in opposition to the motion on June 3, 2019
(ECF No. 194), and Hanson replied on June 4, 2019 (ECF No.
support of his Motion for Release, Hanson states the
following factual background, which is supported by a
declaration of counsel and exhibits (ECF Nos. 192-1, 192-2,
192-3, 192-4), and none of which is disputed by Respondents.
two days after the Court of Appeals' ruling, the Elko
County District Attorney reached out to Hanson's counsel
about a resolution of the case. (ECF No. 192 at 2.) After
negotiations, the State filed a Second Amended Criminal
Information (“Criminal Information”), in
Nevada's Fourth Judicial District Court, on April 15,
2019, charging Hanson with one count of voluntary
manslaughter and one count of abuse or neglect of a child
with substantial bodily harm, significantly lesser charges
than the first-degree murder charge on which Hanson was
convicted in 1999. (Id. at 2; ECF No. 192-2
(Criminal Information).) Also on April 15, the parties filed
a plea agreement in the Fourth Judicial District Court.
(See ECF No. 192 at 2; ECF No. 192-3 (No Contest
Plea Agreement).) The plea agreement provides, in relevant
I hereby agree to enter a plea of Nolo Contendere (“No
Contest”), pursuant to North Carolina v.
Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to: one count of voluntary
manslaughter, a violation of Nev. Rev. Stat § 200.050, a
Category B felony; and one count of abuse, neglect or
endangerment of a child resulting in substantial bodily harm,
a violation of Nev. Rev. Stat § 200.508(1)(1)(2), a
Category B felony.
My decision to plead no contest is based ... upon the plea
agreement in this case, which is as follows:
In light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision
affirming the federal district court's grant of habeas
relief ... this Court will vacate my prior convictions and
sentence in this case. the State will file an Amended
Information charging me with the counts identified above. In
exchange for my No. Contest pleas to each count, the parties
will stipulate to a sentence of 48 to 120 months imprisonment
on Count 1. The parties will stipulate to a sentence of 52 to
132 months on Count 2 consecutive to Count 1.
The parties stipulate to enter judgment from this plea
nunc pro tunc to April 28, 1999 with credit for 463
days served. The parties stipulate that I have already served
the maximum term of incarceration and I will be immediately
paroled and discharged. It is the intentions of the parties
that I be released from custody immediately.
This plea supersedes the original guilty verdict on the
original charge of first-degree murder entered on April 28,
1999, pursuant to a jury trial.
The terms and conditions of the plea are conditional on this
Court. If this Court rejects this negotiation, the parties
will be returned to the position they were in prior to the
entry of this plea.
At the time of my arraignment in district court, and prior to
the entry of the plea of No. Contest contemplated by this
agreement, the parties agree that I will inquire of the
Court, in line with State v. Cripps, 122 Nev. 764
(2006), whether it will be inclined to limit its sentence to
the agreement describe[d] above. Under Cripps, this
Court must “indicate on the record whether the judge is
inclined to follow a particular sentencing recommendation of
the parties.” Should this Court “express an
inclination to follow the parties' sentencing
recommendation, the defendant must be ...