Hulsey (Ronald) v. Warden

Opinion

in this case. Even assuming the truth of appellant's assertion that he handed the petition to a prison official on November 4, 2013, he fails to demonstrate that the petition was actually received by the district court on November 5, 2013, the deadline for filing a timely petition. To the extent that appellant contends that the petition was timely because he handed it to a prison official within the one-year time period, this argument fails as this court does not recognize the "prison mailbox rule" for purposes of filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Gonzales v. State, 118 Nev. 590, 594-95, 53 P.3d 901, 903-04 (2002). Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1

LiCtit_v Hardesty

ear reio J. Douglas

Cherry

1-The opening brief does not comply with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have one-inch margins on all four sides. We caution appellant's counsel that future failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 454P149 cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge The Williamson Law Office, PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ce.