of conviction on January 18, 1978. 2 Appellant's petition was therefore
untimely filed. 3 See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's petition was also an
abuse of the writ. 4 See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was therefore
procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual
prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Further, because the State
specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the
presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2).
In his petition, appellant appeared to contend that the
procedural bars did not apply because he was challenging the
constitutionality of the laws and the jurisdiction of the courts.
Specifically, appellant claimed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
convict him because there was no enacting clause set forth in the Nevada
Revised Statutes. Appellant's assertion was without merit, as his claim
challenged the validity of his judgment of conviction, and thus, the
procedural bars do apply in this case. 5 See NRS 34.720(D; NRS 34.724(1).
2 No direct appeal was taken from this judgment of conviction.
3Appellant's petition was also filed more than 22 years after the
effective date of NRS 34.726. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 44, § 33, at 92.
4 Docket No. 28958 (Order Dismissing Appeal,
Wilcox v. State,
November 30, 1998); Wilcox v. State, Docket No. 57752 (Order of
Affirmance, June 8, 2011).
Appellant's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts.
5
Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. We note that the Statutes of Nevada
contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution.
continued on next page. . .
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 27tM*
Because appellant did not demonstrate good cause, the petition was
procedurally barred. Further, appellant failed to overcome the
presumption of prejudice. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying the petition.
Docket No. 65964
Appellant filed his petition in district court case number
C38847 on June 7, 2013, almost 33 years after this court issued the
remittitur from his direct appeal on June 10, 1980. Whitmore v. State,
Docket No. 12105 (Order Dismissing Appeal, May 22, 1980). Appellant's
petition was therefore untimely filed. 6 See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's
petition was also an abuse of the writ. 7 See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's
petition was therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good
cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Further,
because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to
overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2).
. . . continued
The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified,
codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.
°Appellant's petition was also filed more than 22 years after the
effective date of NRS 34.726. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 44, § 33, at 92.
7 Wilcox•v. Docket No. 28958 (Order. Dismissing Appeal,
State,
November 30, 1998); Wilcox v. State, Docket No. 57752 (Order of
Affirmance, June 8, 2011).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
10) 1947A ale
In his petition, appellant claimed that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to convict him because there was no enacting clause set forth
in the Nevada Revised Statutes. As explained above, appellant's claim
was without merit and appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to
excuse the procedural bars. Further, appellant failed to overcome the
presumption of prejudice. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
Douglas
#.19.174
J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Roy Henry Wilcox
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ae,