in his previous petitions. 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).
First, appellant appeared to assert that he had good cause
because he believed that this court erred in concluding that an amended
judgment of conviction filed on August 12, 2010, did not provide good
cause to challenge the original judgment of conviction. This court has
already considered and twice rejected the underlying claim. See
Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 58136 (Order of Affirmance, September
14, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 57332 (Order of Affirmance,
June 8, 2011). Reconsideration of this claim is barred by the doctrine of
law of the case, which "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely
focused argument." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799
(1975). While appellant claimed that this court erred in its disposition of
this issue, appellant failed to demonstrate that the law of the case should
not be applied. See Tien Fu Hsu v. Cnty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31,
'Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 58136 (Order of Affirmance,
September 14, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 57332 (Order of
Affirmance, June 8, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 46609 (Order of
Affirmance, December 5, 2006).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 aeo
173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (discussing when the doctrine of the law of the
case should not be applied).
Second, appellant attempted to overcome the procedural bars
by characterizing his petition as a "First Amendment" petition. However,
this lacked merit, as appellant failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional
prior restraint of his First Amendment rights. See NRS 34.185.
Third, appellant claimed that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to convict him and asserted that the procedural bars did not
apply to this claim because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.
Appellant's claim lacked merit because his claim did not implicate the
jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010.
Fourth, appellant claimed that he suffered from a
fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to demonstrate a
fundamental miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable
showing of actual innocence—factual innocence, not legal innocence.
Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Calderon v.
Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998). Appellant did not demonstrate
actual innocence as his claims involved legal innocence, and therefore, 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, 523
U.S. at 559 (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also
Pellegrini, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev.
838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I94Th
Finally, appellant failed to overcome the presumption of
prejudice to the State. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying
the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
C.J.
/c-IcAA •-e4-4-1.1 , J.
Hardesty
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Steven Samuel Braunstein
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COMM'
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A