Brown (Howard) v. State ( 2014 )

 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(1)(b); 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 did not attempt to demonstrate good cause to excuse
the procedural defaults. Rather, appellant argued that the procedural
bars did not apply because he was actually innocent. Appellant claimed
that he was actually innocent because the victim's death was caused by a
drug administered by hospital employees after the altercation with
appellant. This claim was without merit. Appellant's actions were a
substantial factor in the victim's death and his criminal liability would not
be relieved by the medical treatment that followed the altercation. See
Lay v. State, 110 Nev. 1189, 1192-93, 886 P.2d 448, 450 (1994). Moreover,
appellant failed to demonstrate that this claim was based on new evidence
as appellant has previously raised similar claims related to the victim's
medical treatment. See Brown v. State, Docket No. 56769 (Order of
Affirmance, March 18, 2011). Accordingly, appellant failed to show that
"it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted
him in light of. . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538,
559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also
Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v.
. continued
March 18, 2011); Brown, Sr. v. State, Docket No. 59696 (Order of
Affirmance, September 12, 2012).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A dlatip
Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore
conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition
as procedurally barred and barred by laches. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Howard Vincent Brown
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
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
3
(0) I941A