in his previous petitions. 3 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).
Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct.
1309 (2012), appellant argued that ineffective assistance of post-conviction
counsel excused his procedural defects. Ineffective assistance of post-
conviction counsel would not be good cause in the instant case because the
appointment of counsel in the prior post-conviction proceedings was not
statutorily or constitutionally required. See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev.
293, 303, 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997); McKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159,
164, 912 P.2d 255, 258 (1996). Further, this court has recently held that
the holding in Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-
conviction procedures, see Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. , P.3d
(Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014), and thus, Martinez does not
provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Therefore, the
district court properly denied the petition as procedurally barred.
3 Jonesv. State, Docket No. 30756 (Order Dismissing Appeal,
September 11, 2000); Jones v. State, Docket No. 43554 (Order of
Affirmance, March 29, 2005); Jones v. State, Docket No. 54863 (Order of
Affirmance, January 13, 2011).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
In addition, 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. 4
/ cees-4; , J.
Hardesty
se °
Douglas
CHERRY, J., concurring:
Although I would extend the equitable rule recognized in
Martinez to this case because appellant was convicted of murder and is
facing a severe sentence, see Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. , P.3d
(Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014) (Cherry, J., dissenting), I concur in
the judgment on appeal in this case because the State pleaded laches
4 We 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
3
(0) 1947A et.
under NRS 34.800(2) and appellant failed to rebut the presumption of
prejudice to the State.
J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Christopher Anthony Jones
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A