De La Hoya (Jorge) v. State

those raised in previous petitions. 3 See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); MRS
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(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 excuse the procedural defaults, appellant
claimed that he lacked knowledge about the law and procedural deadlines
and that he was misled as to what to file and when by the inmate law
clerks who assisted him. We conclude that appellant did not establish
that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising
his claims earlier. 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 petitioner's claim of organic brain
damage, borderline mental retardation, and reliance on assistance of
inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for
the filing of a successive post-conviction petition). Therefore, the district
court did not err in denying these claims.
Next, appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay
because counsel refused to file a notice of appeal and failed to advise
appellant what to do regarding an appeal Appellant failed to
demonstrate that this claim could not have been raised in a timely
petition. Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252, 71 P.3d at 506. Appellant did not

3De La Hoya v. Warden, Docket No. 62811 (Order of Affirmance,
October 16, 2013). No appeal was taken from the denial of appellant's
2008 petition.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1047A
allege that he believed counsel had filed an appeal and only recently
learned that counsel had not. See id. at 255, 71 P.3d at 508. In fact, he
claimed that counsel specifically refused to file the appeal. Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying this claim.
Finally, appellant did not overcome the presumption of
prejudice to the State. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying
the petition as procedurally barred and barred by laches. 4 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Piekuti,p ,

Pickering

J.
Saitta

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Jorge De La Hoya
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk

4We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to appoint counsel for the instant petition. See NRS 34.750(1).

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e