Cabrera (Charlie) v. State ( 2015 )

 not provide good cause as the appointment of postconviction counsel was
discretionary. See NRS 34.750(1).
Appellant next claimed that he had good cause because the
State did not respond to his claim that he was deprived of a direct appeal
due to the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his trial counsel's
failure to file a direct appeal after being requested to do so was
abandonment constituting good cause. This claim did not provide good
cause because a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may only provide
good cause where the ineffective-assistance claim itself is not procedurally
barred, and appellant's claim was reasonably available to appellant to
raise in his first postconviction petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev.
248, 252,71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).
Appellant next claimed that he had good cause because he had
received new information about conditions in prison, life expectancy, and a
regulation prohibiting clemency for certain offenders. This claim did not
provide good cause because it does not establish an impediment external
to the defense and the new information did not provide a basis for
litigating a late, successive petition challenging the validity of the guilty
plea. See id.
Next, appellant claimed that he had good cause because the
district court judge had not posted a bond before assuming her office.
Appellant failed to demonstrate that the judge was not qualified to serve
or that this argument provided good cause for his late and successive
petition. See id.
Finally, appellant appeared to claim that the decision in State
v. Volosin, Docket No. 64082 (Order of Affirmance, February 2, 2015),
provided good cause. This decision would not provide good cause as it was
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
unpublished and no exception applies in this case, see SCR 123, and the
decision in Volosin relied upon this court's decision in Cunningham v.
State, 100 Nev. 396, 683 P.2d 500 (1984), which is not new law. See
Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252, 71 P.3d at 506. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
/ , C.J.
Hardesty
c29Wer
Parraguirre
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Charlie Cabrera
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
pro se 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
3
(0) 1947A