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).
Appellant first claimed that the procedural bars did not apply
because the district court did not have jurisdiction to convict him because
the laws reproduced in the Nevada Revised Statutes did not contain an
enacting clause as required by the Nevada Constitution. Nev. Const. art.
4, § 23. Appellant's claim was without merit. Appellant's claim did not
implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS
171.010. Moreover, the Statutes of Nevada contain the laws with the
enacting clauses required by the constitution. The Nevada Revised
Statutes reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the
Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.
Second, appellant claimed that he had good cause because he
was immune from prosecution due to NRS 432B.160, which grants
immunity to persons reporting child abuse or neglect. This claim cannot
constitute good cause as appellant raised this issue in a previous petition
and this court rejected that claim. Hull v. State, Docket No. 44376 (Order
of Affirmance September 14, 2005). The doctrine of law of the case
prevents further litigation of this claim and "cannot be avoided by a more
detailed and precisely focused argument." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316,
535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975).
Third, appellant claimed that he suffers from a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. Appellant did not demonstrate a fundamental
miscarriage of justice 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
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117
Nev. 860, 887, 34 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.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
J.
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Roger William Hull
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Second 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
9D) 1947A •