Vinci (Dante) v. Warden

 On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred by
finding that his counsel's failure to timely file his petition did not
constitute good cause to excuse the procedural defect. He asserts that two
recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court control the
disposition of this case: Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), and
Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012). He explains that
these cases demonstrate that the statutory deadline for filing a post-
conviction petition may be equitably tolled when counsel effectively
abandons his client, as happened here.
We conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate good
cause. First, the decisions cited by appellant pertain to rules governing
federal habeas proceedings and do not directly impact Nevada's statutory
good cause standard, which requires a showing that an "impediment
external to the defense" prevented him from complying with the
procedural rules. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503,
506 (2003). Second, both decisions clearly state that mere negligence on
the part of the petitioner's attorney, such as missing a filing deadline, does
not qualify as cause because the attorney acts as the petitioner's agent
and the petitioner bears the risk of the attorney's conduct. See Maples,
565 U.S. at 132S. Ct. at 922; Holland, 560 U.S. at 651-52. Only in
cases with extraordinary circumstances, such as where the attorney
effectively abandons his client without notice, has the United States
Supreme Court recognized an exception to the rule that an attorney's
actions may not constitute cause to excuse procedural defects. See Maples,
565 U.S. at , 132 S. Ct. at 922-23; Holland, 560 U.S. at 652-53. Here,
appellant asserts only that his counsel missed the deadline; he provides no
other basis for his claim that counsel abandoned him. Notably, his

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
 situation is inapposite to that of the petitioners in Maples or Holland, as
counsel both filed the petition in district court and continues to represent
him on appeal, and he did not allege that he made inquiries of his counsel
as to the deadline or that counsel failed to communicate with him. We
conclude that appellant's allegations do not demonstrate that his counsel's
conduct rose to the level of abandonment rather than mere negligence.
Therefore, appellant has not demonstrated that the delay was due to "an
impediment external to the defense." See Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252, 71
P.3d at 506.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred in denying
the petition without affording him an evidentiary hearing on whether he
demonstrated good cause. He asserts that, because this was his first post-
conviction petition, the district court was required under NRS 34.745(1) to
order the State to file a response or take other appropriate action. We
conclude that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted because his
allegations did not demonstrate good cause and thus did not entitle him to
relief. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225
(1984) (holding that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only
when his claims are supported by specific factual allegations that are not
belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief). To the extent
that appellant contends that the district court acted contrary to NRS
34.745(1) by summarily dismissing the petition, we conclude that
appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was harmed. His factual
allegations in his petition and on appeal do not constitute good cause, and
he does not demonstrate that he was denied the opportunity to present his
good cause arguments to the district court. Accordingly, we conclude that

SUPREME COURT
OF

NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A cep
 the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally
barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Aa, AA;
Hardesty

14,19
- % J.
Douglas

Cherry

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge
Law Office of David R. Houston
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A cep