Manning (Juan) v. State

allow certain jury instructions and verdict options; the validity of his waiver of rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436

(1966); and the constitutionality of his sentence as disproportionate to his crime. The first two claims were raised on direct appeal and rejected on their merits and are therefore barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316,

535 P.2d 797, 799

(1975) (stating that the holding on direct appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals). The other two claims could have been raised on direct appeal and were therefore…