petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause
and prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).
Petty argued that the holdings in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.
132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Ha Van Nguyen v. Curry, 736 F.3d 1287,
1289 (9th Cir. 2013), constitute good cause to excuse the procedural bars.
Petty's reliance on these cases is misplaced because the appointment of
counsel in his prior post-conviction proceedings was not statutorily or
constitutionally required. See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 303, 934
P.2d 247, 253 (1997); MeKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159, 164, 912 P.2d
255, 258 (1996). Further, Martinez does not apply to Nevada's post-
conviction procedures. Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 60, 331 P.3d
867, 870 (2014). Finally, Petty failed to demonstrate that the failure to
consider his claims amounts to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See
Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001).
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
71 --/CLA- t-P-4-4
1Z1 , C.J.
Hardesty
Paii-aguirre
CHERRY, J., dissenting:
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. Adv. Op. 60, 331 P.3d 867,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 97t40/4
875 (2014) (Cherry, J., dissenting). Accordingly, I would reverse and
remand for the district court to determine whether appellant can
demonstrate a substantial underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-
counsel claim that was omitted due to the ineffective assistance of post-
conviction counsel. I therefore dissent.
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Anthony Edward Petty
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A )4S4.)