further claimed that the decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S.
Ct. 1309 (2012), provided good cause. Appellant failed to demonstrate
that his appellate counsel's failure to communicate prevented him from
filing a timely petition. Further, appellant's reliance upon Martinez was
misplaced as the instant petition was the first petition and Martinez does
not apply in these circumstances. Further, the appointment of counsel
was discretionary, see NRS 34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate
an abuse of discretion. Moreover, we note this court has recently held that
Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures.
See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60,
August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and
the decision in Martinez would not provide good cause for this late
petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
freg.A
Hardesty
J. J.
2We 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
2
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Gonzalo Hernandez Villalobos
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e