Opinion ID: 1443930
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of three-judge panel system

Text: Kirksey raises two challenges to the constitutionality of Nevada's three-judge panel system which he claims appellate counsel should have raised on direct appeal. We conclude that both contentions lacked a reasonable probability of success on appeal. First, Kirksey argues that the three-judge panel system is unconstitutional because the procedure for the selection of the panel is arbitrary and capricious. Kirksey has presented no evidence to suggest that this court selected judges who are partial to the death sentence to sit on the three-judge panel which considered his sentence. Additionally, this same issue was addressed and rejected in Paine v. State, 110 Nev. 609, 618, 877 P.2d 1025, 1030 (1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1405, 131 L.Ed.2d 291 (1995), wherein this court stated: Paine's fear that this court selects judges who are partial to sentences of death is not only unsupported, it is unsupportable since it does not occur. Although Paine had not been decided at the time of Kirksey's direct appeal, our ruling in Paine strongly underscores the lack of merit in Kirksey's contention. Second, Kirksey argues that the three-judge panel system is unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious because three-judge panels return death sentences more often than juries. This court has rejected this argument. See, e.g., Paine, 110 Nev. at 617, 877 P.2d at 1030; Redmen v. State, 108 Nev. 227, 235-36, 828 P.2d 395, 401, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880, 113 S.Ct. 229, 121 L.Ed.2d 165 (1992), overruled in part on other grounds by Alford v. State, 111 Nev. 1409, 906 P.2d 714 (1995). Again, although these cases were decided after Kirksey's direct appeal, they indicate that this court would not have granted Kirksey a new sentencing hearing based on this contention.