Smith (Michael) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: May 13, 2014
• Docket: 64999
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

1989. 2 Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed.' See NRS 34.726(1).

Moreover, appellant's petition was an abuse of the writ as he raised claims

new and different from those raised in his previous petition. 4 See NRS

34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a

demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1);

NRS 34.810(3).

Appellant did not provide a good causeS argument. To the

extent that he argued that the procedural bars did not apply because he

was challenging the constitutionality of the laws and the jurisdiction of

the courts, appellant's argument was without merit. Appellant's claims

challenge the validity of the judgment of conviction, and thus, the

procedural bars do apply in this case. 5 See NRS 34.720(1); NRS 34.724(1).

2 No direct appeal was taken.

'Further, the petition was filed more than twenty-one years after the effective date of NRS 34.726. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 44, §§ 5, 33, at 75-76, 92; Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 874-75, 34 P.3d 519, 529 (2001)

4Smith v. State, 106 Nev. 781, 802 P.2d 628 (1990).

5 Appellant's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. 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. The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 9)1 1947A 4410:9 Because appellant did not demonstrate good cause, the petition was

procedurally barred. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 6

J. Hardesty

aksLay J. Cherry

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Michael Lee Smith Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

6We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A