Williams (Jessica) v. State ( 2013 )

 response asserting that the petition was procedurally barred and a
supplemental response arguing that Williams' grounds for relief lacked
merit. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied
Williams' petition on the merits. This appeal followed.
The record on appeal does not support the district court's
finding that the federal district court "remanded this case . . . for
determination of several issues." Instead, it reveals that the federal
district court granted Williams' motion to stay her federal action so that
she could exhaust her claims in the state courts, the federal district court
expressly stated that it had no opinion "as to whether the circumstances
presented satisfy the cause and prejudice standard with respect to any
claim of procedural default," and the federal defenders brought the post-
conviction habeas petition on Williams' behalf.
The district court's order denying Williams' petition does not
contain factual findings regarding whether procedural default rules
applied to Williams' petition. "Application of the statutory procedural
default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory." State v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070,
1074 (2005). Given the untimeliness of the petition, see NRS 34.726(1),
the presumption of prejudice to the State, see NRS 34.800, and the nature
of Williams' grounds for relief, see NRS 34.810(1)(b), the district court had
a duty to determine whether any or all of Williams' grounds for relief were
procedurally barred and its failure to do so was an abuse of discretion. See
Riker, 121 Nev. at 234, 112 P.3d at 1076. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court with instructions to review the
record and determine the pertinent facts, consider and apply the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
appropriate rules of procedural default to Williams' petition, and issue a
written order that sets forth, with suitable findings of fact and conclusions
of law, which grounds, if any, are procedurally barred.'
Hardesty
P CP.4)1.
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
"The fast track statement, response, and reply do not comply with
the formatting requirements of NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because
they are not double-spaced. We caution counsel for the parties that future
failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court
may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A