Davis (James) v. State ( 2014 )

 in his previous petitions. 3 See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was
procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual
prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the
State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the
rebuttable presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).
Appellant first claimed that the procedural bars did not apply
because he did not file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus but rather he filed a "petition for extraordinary writ of habeas
corpus ad subjiciendum and withdrawal of plea." Appellant was mistaken.
Because appellant challenged the validity of the judgment of conviction,
appellant's petition was properly construed to be a post-conviction petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, and thus the procedural bars and statutory
laches did apply to the petition. 4 See NRS 34.724(2)(b); NRS 34.726(1);
NRS 34.800(2); NRS 34.810(2).
Next, appellant claimed that the factual basis for his petition
was not available previously due to interference by the State of Nevada.
Appellant failed to demonstrate that the factual or legal basis for his
petition was not previously available. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev.
248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Appellant further failed to overcome
the presumption of prejudice to the State. Therefore, we conclude that the
'Davis v. State, Docket No. 47812 (Order of Affirmance, July 27,
2007). Appellant did not appeal from the denial of several petitions, and
in one instance appellant filed a late notice of appeal. See Davis v. State,
Docket No. 54109 (Order Dismissing Appeal, August 10, 2009).
4 Further,none of appellant's claims implicated the jurisdiction of
the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (4eA9
district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred
and barred by laches. 5 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 6
C.J.
, J.
J.
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
James Anthony Davis
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
We conclude that the district court did not err in striking
5
appellant's request for damages as damages are not appropriate in a
habeas corpus action.
6 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
3
(0) 1947A (41040