34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a
demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1);
NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).
First, appellant appeared to claim that her petition was not
untimely because she filed the petition within one year from the remittitur
on her first post-conviction appeal. This argument lacks merit as the
remittitur referenced in NRS 34.726 as one of the measures for a timely
petition is the remittitur from direct appeal.
Next, appellant argued that she was unable to raise claims
regarding jury instruction 19 and the indictment because the case file sent
by counsel was missing jury instruction 19 and other unspecified
documents. 3 She indicated that she found out about the missing document
when aiding her mother with a challenge to her mother's conviction.
Appellant failed to demonstrate that she was unable to raise all of her
grounds for relief in her first timely petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119
Nev. 248, 251, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Appellant raised the claim
relating to the variance between the indictment and the evidence adduced
at trial in her first petition, and while it was not pleaded with sufficient
factual specificity, raising the claim in her first petition belies her
contention that she was unable to litigate the claim in the first petition.
Appellant likewise failed to demonstrate that a claim relating to jury
instruction 19 was not reasonably available in her first petition as she
3 Notably, appellant raised a claim that her appellate counsel failed
to provide her with a complete case file in her first petition, indicating that
she was aware when she filed her first petition that she was missing
documents. However, appellant did not seek to supplement the petition
until after she filed a notice of appeal from the denial of her first petition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
?
1111 IfitlillEME=121ENIES51
litigated other claims relating to jury instructions. Moreover, appellant
failed to demonstrate actual prejudice because she failed to demonstrate
that her trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to: (1)
challenge jury instruction 19 as it is a proper statement of law, and (2)
challenge the indictment as it provided sufficient notice of the crimes
charged. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Kirksey
v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996); Warden v. Lyons,
100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984); NRS 173.075(1); NRS
465.080. Therefore, we conclude that the petition was procedurally
barred. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
AA- n
1
J.
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Stephanie Balsamo
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
_ ••
"7 , • .,;f-_-110 111 iliMMIMBUSEMIEEMENBEEEME