Sandoval (Lawrence) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 16, 2014
• Docket: 62660
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). First, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings. See NRS 34.750(1). Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint post-conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Next, appellant claimed that the decisions in Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), provided good cause to excuse his procedural bars because he was not informed in writing of the plea offer and because counsel, in advising him to take the plea offer, did not adequately explain the risks of trial. Appellant's good-cause argument was without merit because his case was final when Cooper and Frye were decided, and he failed to demonstrate that the cases would apply retroactively to him.

...continued timely petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Sandoval v. State, Docket No. 52298 (Order Dismissing Appeal, September 12, 2008).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (()) 1947 A Even if Cooper and Frye announced new rules of constitutional law, he failed to allege facts to support that he met either exception to the general principle that such rules do not apply retroactively to cases which were already final when the new rules were announced. See Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 816-17, 59 P.3d 463, 469-70 (2002). Finally, appellant failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred and barred by laches. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

-LAS\ Hardesty

-----I--acrA Douglas

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Lawrence Joseph Sandoval Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

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