Potts (Brandon) v. State ( 2013 )

 We rejected Potts' claim that the district court erred by
denying his motion to dismiss and/or suppress when we considered his
original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this court prior to the
entry of his guilty plea. We previously held that "[c] onsidering the totality
of the circumstances, . . . Potts was not subjected to a custodial
interrogation triggering the requirements under Miranda," see Somee v.
State, 124 Nev. 434, 444-45, 187 P.3d 152, 159-60 (2008); Holyfield v.
State, 101 Nev. 793, 797, 711 P.2d 834, 836 (1985), abrogated on other
grounds by Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S., 292 (1990), and that "[elven
assuming that Potts was in custody, his statements and participation in
field sobriety tests were not accomplished in the context of an
interrogation under Miranda. Dixon v. State, 103 Nev. 272, 274, 737 P.2d
1162, 1164 (1987)." Potts, Docket No. 61511 (Order Denying Petition at 2-
3). We conclude that the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes further
litigation of this same issue. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d
797, 798 (1975); see also Tien Fu Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625,
630, 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (observing that this court may 'depart
from a prior holding if convinced that it is clearly erroneous and would
work a manifest injustice" (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605,
618 n.8 (1983))). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Sa.4321
Hardesty
PCPAMOkOM 9 •
J.
Parraguirre
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
I
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Law Offices of John G. Watkins
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk