FERRILL VOLPICELLI v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ferrill J. Volpicelli appeals from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360 on October 14, 2024. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

In his petition, Volpicelli alleged the sentencing court was without judicial authority to adjudicate him a habitual criminal because his prior convictions were non-qualifying under the habitual criminal statute. Volpicelli raised this exact same claim in a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360, and this court affirmed the denial of that previous petition because Volpicelli's claim was not within the scope of NRS 34.360. See Volpicelli v. State, No. 89308-COA, 2025 WL 945606 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2025) (Order of Affirmance). Because this court previously denied his habeas petition raising the same claim, the instant habeas petition is barred by the doctrine of law of the case, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975), and Volpicelli's reliance on out-of-jurisdiction cases does not demonstrate this court should revisit this issue, see Hsu v. Cnty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630, 173 P.3d 724, 729 (2007) (observing that this “court may revisit a prior ruling when (1) subsequent proceedings produce substantially new or different evidence, (2) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice if enforced”). Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally barred pursuant to the postconviction petition statutes. However, those statutes do not apply to petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360. Thus, the district court erred by dismissing the petition based on those statutes. Nevertheless, we affirm for the reason stated above because the district court reached the correct result. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason).