Moss (Kevin) v. State C/W 66229/66230 ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
KEVIN LEE MOSS, No 66227
Appellant,
vs. FILED
THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEC 1 1 2014
Respondent.
TRACE K. LINDEMAN
../PREME COURT
CLERKg :.:1/
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
KEVIN LEE MOSS, No. 66229
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
KEVIN LEE MOSS, No. 66230
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
These are proper person appeals from an order of the district
court denying identical post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus.' Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Robert W. Lane,
'These appeals have been submitted for decision without oral
argument, NRAP 34(0(3), and we conclude that the records are sufficient
for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91
Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) [947A AP>
I - 0 145 2
Judge. We elect to consolidate these appeals for disposition. See NRAP
3(b)(2).
Appellant filed his petitions on April 11, 2014, nearly three
years after the entry of the judgments of conviction on August 23, 2011. 2
Appellant's petitions were therefore untimely filed and procedurally
barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and
undue prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1).
Appellant appeared to suggest that he had good cause to
excuse the procedural bar because, due at least in part to trial counsel's
ineffective assistance, he was ignorant of the sentence actually imposed
until he went before the Parole Board. Appellant failed to demonstrate
that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising
his claim in a timely post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).
Moreover, his claim of ignorance was belied by the record as appellant was
apprised at his sentencing hearing that the sentence in one of his cases
was to be served consecutively to the others. Cf. Hargrove v. State, 100
Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). We therefore conclude that
2 No direct appeals were taken. We note that while denying
appellant's petitions as procedurally barred, the district court nevertheless
gave appellant partial relief by filing amended judgments of conviction in
two of the three cases, granting 66 days' presentence credit in the case
underlying Docket No. 66230, and reducing the minimum term of
imprisonment in the case underlying Docket No. 66229. Those
amendments are not at issue in the instant appeal and thus do not affect
the analysis of the procedural bar. See Sullivan v. State, 120 Nev. 537,
541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A '0
the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as
procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Pickering
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
Kevin Lee Moss
Nye County District Attorney
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County Clerk
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in these matters, 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 Coura
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A en