Leslie, III (Wilbert) v. State ( 2014 )

 post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. 3 See NRS
34.810(1)(b)(2). 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). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches,
appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of
prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).
First, appellant claimed that the decision in Martinez v. Ryan,
566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), established "new governing law" that
the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel could provide good
cause to excuse procedural bars. Appellant's claim lacked merit. This
court has already recognized that appellant, who was initially under a
sentence of death, was entitled to the effective assistance of post-
conviction counsel in his first, timely post-conviction petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Leslie v. State, Docket No. 52954 (Order of Affirmance,
October 21, 2009). However, this court also held that appellant failed to
raise his claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel within a
reasonable time and that he therefore failed to excuse the entire length of
the delay. Id. That ruling is the law of the case. See Hall v. State, 91
Nev. 314, 315, 535 P.2d 797, 798 (1975). And the ruling in Martinez would
not overcome the law of the case as Martinez does not apply to Nevada's
statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev.
, 331 P.3d 867, 874 (2014). Thus, the decision in Martinez would
not provide good cause for this late and successive petition.
v. Warden, 118 Nev. 773, 59 P.3d 440 (2002); Leslie v. State,
3 Leslie
Docket No. 52954 (Order of Affirmance, October 21, 2009); Leslie v. State,
Docket No. 61050 (Order of Affirmance, April 9, 2013).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th
Second, appellant claimed that the ineffective assistance of
trial and appellate counsel provided good cause to excuse the procedural
bars. However, those claims are themselves untimely and thus did not
provide good cause for this late and successive petition. See Hathaway v.
State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).
Finally, appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice
to the State. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering Saitta
cc: Hon. Stefany,Miley, District Judge
Wilbert Emory Leslie, III
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1.947A artefr.