Lay (Orlando) v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    ORLANDO G. LAY,                                        No. 68100
    Appellant,
    vs.
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    FILED
    Respondent.                                                    APR 15 2016
    ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
    This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a
    postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District
    Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge.
    Appellant Orlando Lay pleaded guilty to sexually motivated
    coercion while represented by Jeffrey Maningo. Thereafter, Lay hired Ben
    Nadig to represent him in a post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty
    plea based on Maningo's purported ineffective assistance. Nearly two
    years after the district court entered Lay's judgment of conviction, he filed
    the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus.' The district court denied
    the petition as untimely under NRS 34.726(1), concluding Lay did not
    "Lay filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis before filing the
    present petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied
    Lay's coram nobis petition, and Lay did not appeal that decision. To the
    extent that Lay's present habeas petition draws from his earlier petition
    for a writ of coram nobis, we note that the district court entered its order
    denying Lay's coram nobis petition more than six months before Lay filed
    this appeal. Therefore, we are unable to address any alleged error in the
    district court's coram nobis decision. See NRAP 3(a)(1); see also NRAP 4.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) I94Th
    demonstrate (1) good cause for his delay or (2) that denying the petition
    would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
    Lay now appeals, arguing he is entitled to at least an
    evidentiary hearing because (1) Nadig's alleged ineffective assistance
    constitutes good cause for his failure to comply with NRS 34.726(1)'s one-
    year time-bar, (2) Maningo's alleged ineffective assistance is also good
    cause for failing to comply with NRS 34.726(1), and (3) failing to consider
    the petition amounts to a fundamental miscarriage of justice because Lay
    can adequately demonstrate his factual innocence. We reject these
    arguments and conclude that Lay cannot overcome NRS 34.726(1)'s one-
    year time-bar.
    District courts must dismiss habeas petitions not filed within
    one year after a judgment of conviction 2 unless (1) there is good cause for
    the petitioner's delay, NRS 34.726(1); State v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court,
    
    121 Nev. 225
    , 231-32, 
    112 P.3d 1070
    , 1074 (2005); or (2) the petitioner can
    show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if his petition
    is barred, Pellegrini v. State, 
    117 Nev. 860
    , 887, 
    34 P.3d 519
    , 537 (2001).
    First, Lay's ineffective assistance claims against Nadig—who
    represented Lay in a post-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea—
    cannot constitute good cause to overcome NRS 34.726(1)'s one-year
    procedural bar. Where there is no statutory or constitutional right to
    counsel, ineffective assistance of counsel will not constitute good cause to
    2 Laydoes not argue he filed his petition within the one-year time
    frame provided under NRS 34.726(1); indeed, Lay's judgment of conviction
    was entered November 19, 2012, and he filed the present petition
    December 5, 2014.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    Pe
    overcome procedural bars. Crump v. Warden, 
    113 Nev. 293
    , 303 n.5, 
    934 P.2d 247
    , 253 n.5 (1997). This court has never found a constitutional right
    to counsel for a post-sentencing motion to withdraw a guilty plea, cf. Beak
    v. State, 
    106 Nev. 729
    , 731, 
    802 P.2d 2
    , 4 (1990) (finding a constitutional
    right to counsel during a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea),
    and neither the United States nor Nevada Constitutions recognize a right
    to counsel during postconviction proceedings, McKague v. Whitley,        
    112 Nev. 159
    , 163, 
    912 P.2d 255
    , 257-58 (1996) (citing Coleman v. Thompson,
    
    501 U.S. 722
    , 752 (1991)). Moreover, Lay has not discussed, and we have
    not found, any Nevada statute giving him a right to counsel for his post-
    sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
    As such, the district court properly concluded that Lay did not
    overcome NRS 34.726(1)'s one-year time-bar because he had no
    constitutional or statutory right to counsel when Nadig represented him,
    and therefore, Lay did not have a right to the effective assistance of
    counsel. See 
    Crump, 113 Nev. at 302-03
    n.5, 934 P.2d at 253 
    n.5 (1997).
    Second, Lay's claim that Maningo provided ineffective
    assistance is itself time-barred. Lay's claims against Maningo involve
    conduct that, if true, would have been apparent well within a year of his
    judgment of conviction, 3 and "an adequate allegation of good cause would
    sufficiently explain why a petition was filed beyond the [one-year]
    3 Reading  Lay's petition holistically, it appears he argues Maningo
    provided ineffective assistance by (1) advising Lay a jury would convict
    him, (2) not believing Lay's claim to innocence, (3) advising Lay not to ruin
    a good plea offer by claiming innocence during the plea canvas, (4) not
    advising Lay of the immigration consequences of his plea, and (5) not
    seriously investigating Lay's innocence.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    e,
    statutory time period. Thus, a claim or allegation that was reasonably
    available to the petitioner during the statutory time period would not
    constitute good cause to excuse the delay."   Hathaway v. State, 
    119 Nev. 248
    , 252-53, 
    71 P.3d 503
    , 506 (2003). Thus, the district court properly
    determined Maningo's alleged ineffective assistance is not good cause for
    delay under NRS 34.726(1) because the claims against Mailing° are
    themselves time-barred.
    Finally, Lay argues the evidence shows that he is factually
    innocent, and therefore, applying NRS 34.726(1)'s time-bar constitutes a
    fundamental miscarriage of justice. The district court rejected this
    argument, concluding that Lay did not produce any new evidence and
    merely argued the evidence against him was insufficient to support a
    conviction.
    "This court may excuse the failure to show cause [for delay]
    where the prejudice from a failure to consider the claim amounts to a
    fundamental miscarriage of justice." 
    Pellegrini, 117 Nev. at 887
    , 34 P.3d
    at 537 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In order to demonstrate a
    fundamental miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable
    showing of actual innocence—factual innocence, not legal innocence."
    Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 60, 
    331 P.3d 867
    , 875 (2014).
    "Actual innocence means that 'it is more likely than not that no reasonable
    juror would have convicted him in light of. . . new evidence." 
    Id. (quoting Calderon
    u. Thompson, 
    523 U.S. 538
    , 559 (1998)). Therefore, to avoid NRS
    34.726(1)'s time-bar based on a "fundamental miscarriage of justice," the
    petitioner must present (1) new evidence, (2) showing he is factually
    innocent, (3) such that no reasonable juror would convict him. 
    Id. SUPREME COURT
           OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A 4810(9
    We agree with the district court's determination that Lay has
    failed to produce new evidence, 4 and his arguments merely challenge the
    legal sufficiency of the case against him, as opposed to demonstrating
    actual innocence. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that
    applying NRS 34.726(1)'s time-bar would not result in a fundamental
    miscarriage of justice.
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    Saitta
    ,   J.
    Pickering
    4 Lay filed a second habeas petition after the district court denied the
    present petition. The second petition purports to amend the present
    habeas petition by providing new evidence of Lay's innocence. First, Lay
    cannot amend a petition that the district court has already denied.
    Second, the "new evidence" tends to inculpate Lay. In a letter to an
    immigration judge, Lay's victim requests clemency for Lay's "mistakes"
    which were the result of a "weak moment." At best, the letter says that
    some unspecified details that were reported about the incident were
    incorrect, but "something did happen that night and it was not right."
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    5
    (0) 1947A eler.
    cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
    Orlando G. Lay
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    6
    (0) 1947A    7416t49