Tiffany (David) Vs. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 24, 2020
• Docket: 78955
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAVID JOSEPH TIFFANY, No. 78955 Appellant, vs . FILED THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUN 2 it 2020 Respondent. ELIZABOA A. BROWN CLERK 0 F P ENI COURT Ao SY WIN t CLERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Cristina D. Silva, Judge. Appellant filed his petition on September 26, 2017, almost seven years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on October 18, 2010. Tiffany v. State, Docket No. 49817 (Order of Affirmance, April 13, 2010). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive, see NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2), (2), because he had previously litigated two postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Tiffany v. State, Docket No. 63436 (Order of Affirmance, September 18, 2013); Tiffany v. State, Docket No. 61014 (Order of Affirmance, September 18, 2013). 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 had to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). The district court denied the petition as procedurally barred and barred by laches. In the briefing before this court, appellant does not present any argument that he demonstrated good cause or that he could overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) (It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court."). Filing a petition to exhaust state grounds for purposes of pursuing federal relief does not provide good cause because the claims were available during the first postconviction proceedings. See

Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91, 95 n.2 (2012). Thus, appellant has not demonstrated the district court erred in denying his petition as procedurally barred and barred by laches. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

caft-stiNtimmuum Parraguirre

,, --_Lk Ct_A. J. Hardesty

J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge Law Office of Christopher R. Oram Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk