raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. 2
See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 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).
Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was
required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS
34.800(2).
In an attempt to demonstrate good cause, appellant claimed
that he did not have access to his entire case file or the complete trial
transcripts when he filed his first petition. This good-cause claim was
previously raised and rejected by this court in Viray v. State, Docket No.
54255 (Order of Affirmance, May 7, 2010), and the doctrine of law of the
case prevents further litigation of this issue. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev.
314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). Therefore, the district court did
not err in denying this good-cause claim.
In an attempt to overcome the procedural bars and the
presumption of prejudice to the State, appellant claimed that he was
actually innocent. Appellant failed to demonstrate actual innocence
because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no
reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence."
Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo,
513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34
v. State, Docket No. 54255 (Order of Affirmance, May 7,
2 Viray
2010); Viray v. State, Docket No. 47804 (Order of Affirmance, June 1,
2007).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920,
922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Hardesty
J.
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Benjardi Batucan Viray
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A