Morales (Thomas) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                        statutory provisions relating to a notice of appeal. Appellant's petition
    was required to be filed within one year from either entry of the judgment
    of conviction or issuance of the remittitur from a timely direct appeal. See
    NRS 34.726(1).
    Appellant next claimed that he had cause for the delay
    because his appellate counsel failed to provide him a copy of the order
    resolving his appeal and never informed him of the procedural rules for a
    post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the
    district court did not err in rejecting this good cause argument. Appellant
    was aware of the resolution of his direct appeal when on August 24, 2010,
    he received a letter from appellate counsel referencing the issuance of the
    remittitur in his direct appeal. Appellant failed to demonstrate that an
    impediment external to the defense prevented him from filing a timely
    petition.   See Hathaway v. State, 
    119 Nev. 248
    , 252, 
    71 P.3d 503
    , 506
    (2003). Former appellate counsel did not have a constitutional duty to
    inform appellant about the availability of post-conviction remedies.       See
    
    id.
     (recognizing that good cause must be a legal excuse); see also Miranda
    v. Castro, 
    292 F.3d 1063
    , 1066-68 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that equitable
    tolling was not warranted where a petitioner relied on incorrect advice of
    former counsel because petitioner had no right to the assistance of counsel
    regarding post-conviction relief); Pena v. U.S., 
    534 F.3d 92
    , 95-96 (2d Cir.
    2008) (holding that the right to the effective assistance of counsel in a
    first-tier appeal does not encompass a requirement that an attorney
    inform his client of the possibility of certiorari review or that the attorney
    assist the client in preparing such a petition); Moore v. Cockrell, 
    313 F.3d 880
    , 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that the right to counsel ends when the
    decision by the appellate court is entered). Therefore, we conclude that
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    474/0/A
    the district court did not err in determining the petition was procedurally
    barred and without good cause. Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    GibboiTs
    J.
    Pickering                                 Saitta
    cc:   Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
    Thomas Morales
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA                                          3
    (01 1947",
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 66432

Filed Date: 12/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021