Chavez (Jafet) v. State

inmate who was not trained or knowledgeable in the law. Appellant failed
to demonstrate an impediment external to the defense. See Hathaway v.
State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); Phelps v. Dir. Nev. Dep't
of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that
reliance on assistance of inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not
constitute good cause).
Second, appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay
because the district court and this court erred in denying his first petition
as untimely. Appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the delay because
the district court and this court correctly determined that his first petition
was untimely. See Chavez v. State, Docket No. 59445 (Order of
Affirmance, March 14, 2013); NRS 34.726(1). Further, even had
appellant's first petition been timely, appellant failed to demonstrate how
this petition could be considered timely and not successive or an abuse of
the writ.
Third, appellant claimed that because the State did not
"properly" raise the procedural bar in its motion to dismiss the instant
petition, the State waived application of it. Appellant's claim is belied by
the record. The State properly raised the procedural bar in its motion to
dismiss.
Finally, appellant claimed that laches did not apply because
the five-year time period did not begin to run until this court filed its
remittitur from its order affirming the denial of appellant's first petition.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e.
a
He also claimed that he has always made a diligent effort to seek relief
which should overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. 3
Appellant failed to demonstrate that laches did not apply or
overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Because appellant did
not file a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction and sentence, the
five-year time period runs from the date of the judgment of conviction,
September 5, 2008. See NRS 34.800(2). Further, appellant's continued
efforts to seek relief did not overcome the presumption of prejudice to the
State. See NRS 34.800(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in
dismissing the petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.
Parr4guire

J.
raitta

3 We
note that appellant also claims that his petition only challenges
his sentencing hearing, and therefore, would not cause prejudice to the
State. This claim is belied by the record. In addition to his sentencing
hearing claim, he raised a claim regarding his decision to plead guilty.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Jafet Chavez
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e