Harris (Brandon) v. State ( 2014 )

 from the probation revocation appeal on June 5, 2012, Harris v. State,
Docket No. 58509 (Order of Affirmance, May 9, 2012). Under these
circumstances, appellant failed to demonstrate that the probation
revocation proceedings or the appeal taken from those proceedings
excused the entire delay as his claims challenging the revocation were
reasonably• available to be raised at an earlier time. See Hathaway v.
State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Moreover, the order
revoking probation did not provide good cause to raise claims challenging
the validity of the judgment of conviction. See generally Sullivan v. State,
120 Nev. 537, 540, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004). Therefore, the district court
did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
J.
Hardesty
&Let I 4r51 J.
Douglas
akzArvi ,
J.
Cherry
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, 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 COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A astgo
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Brandon Kale Harris
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me