Carey (Gordon) v. State ( 2015 )

 Carey contends that the district court erred by denying his
petition because it was timely filed.' This contention lacks merit. See
NRS 34.726(1) (explaining that a petition that challenges the validity of a
judgment or sentence must be filed within one year after entry of the
judgment of conviction or, if an appeal has been taken to a Nevada
appellate court, within one year after remittitur is issued). We reject
Carey's argument that we should construe his petition as timely, despite
the unequivocal language in NRS 34.726, because it was filed within one
year after he was denied relief in the federal courts. State v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005)
("Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction
habeas petitions is mandatory."). Similarly, we reject Carey's argument
that we should consider his pursuit of federal remedies as good cause for
the untimely filing. We note that these are not issues of first impression.
See, e.g., Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
We also reject Carey's assertion that the district court abused
its discretion by declining to consider his supplemental petition. See NRS
34.750(5); State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 758, 138 P.3d 453, 458 (2006)
(recognizing that district courts are vested with broad discretion regarding
supplemental pleadings in postconviction cases). The supplement did not
allege or demonstrate good cause and prejudice, which were essentially
the only relevant issues in this case given that appellant's pro se petition
'Carey also argues that the order denying his petition is deficient.
We disagree. Although the order did not address the merits of Carey's
underlying claims, it was not required to do so because the petition was
procedurally barred.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cice>
was clearly untimely. See State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 181, 69 P.3d
676, 681 (2003) (recognizing that an appellant is required to allege good
cause and prejudice on the face of the petition). Therefore, even assuming
that the district court abused its discretion, no relief would have been
warranted.
Having considered Carey's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
LJ
Pickering
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Karla K. Butko
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 194Th .40.