Harris (Charles) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 17, 2014
• Docket: 64736
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.810(3). Appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse his procedural defects because he lacked legal knowledge and his case was difficult and complex. Appellant's lack of knowledge about the law and the alleged complexities of the case did not constitute good cause. Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't. of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988). Next, appellant claimed that the State withheld and concealed the fact that there was no complaining witness in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Appellant asserted that he only learned of this fact when he received his file from counsel. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause and actual prejudice because he failed to demonstrate exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense and that the evidence was material. See State a Huebler, 128 Nev. „ 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) (recognizing that a Brady claim raised in an untimely petition requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the State withheld evidence (to demonstrate cause) and to establish that the evidence was material (to demonstrate prejudice)). Next, appellant argued that the procedural bar did not apply because the court lacked jurisdiction as there was no complaining witness. Appellant's claims were not supported by the record, see Hargrove v. State,

2Harris v. State, Docket No. 60289 (Order. of Affirmance, November 15, 2012).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 100 Nev. 498, 686 P.2d 222 (1984), and did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts, see Nev. Const. art. 6,* 6; NRS 171.010. Finally, appellant claimed that he could overcome application of the procedural bar because he was actually innocent. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude that the petition was procedurally barred pursuant to NRS 34.810. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and DISMISS the appeal in part.

J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Charles B. Harris Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A