Piceno (Joe) v. State

good cause and actual prejudice. See MRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3).
Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was
required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. MRS
34.800(2).
Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct.
1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not
appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude
that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was
discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 34.750(1),
and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or provide an
explanation for why he could not raise this claim earlier. Further, 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 and successive petition. Therefore, the district court did
not err in denying this petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ 1..toewte, J.
Hardesty

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge
Joe Piceno
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e