Jones (Christopher) v. State

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