Daniels (James) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 we need not address it on appeal in the first instance. 2 See McNelton v.
    State, 
    115 Nev. 396
    , 416, 
    990 P.2d 1263
    , 1276 (1999). Additionally,
    although Daniels challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and propriety
    of the jury instructions in his timely direct appeal, see Daniels v. State,
    Docket No. 53818 (Order of Affirmance, May 7, 2010), he did not raise
    these issues in the instant habeas petition filed below. Therefore, we
    decline to address these claims. See McNelton, 115 Nev. at 416, 
    990 P.2d at 1276
    .
    Daniels' petition was untimely because it was filed 20 months
    after this court issued its remittitur in his direct appeal and, failing to
    demonstrate good cause, prejudice, or a miscarriage of justice, the district
    court should have denied his petition on this basis alone.         See NRS
    34.726(1); Mazzan v. Warden, 
    112 Nev. 838
    , 842, 
    921 P.2d 920
    , 922 (1996);
    see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 
    121 Nev. 225
    , 236,
    
    112 P.3d 1070
    , 1077 (2005) (application of procedural default rules is
    mandatory). Nevertheless, the district court considered the merits of
    Daniels' claim that appellate counsel was ineffective and concluded that
    counsel was not deficient and that Daniels failed to demonstrate prejudice.
    See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687 88, 694 (1984); see also
    -
    Kirksey v. State, 
    112 Nev. 980
    , 998, 
    923 P.2d 1102
    , 1113-14 (1996). We
    conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the
    wrong reason. Wyatt v. State, 
    86 Nev. 294
    , 298, 
    468 P.2d 338
    , 341 (1970)
    ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although
    2 Inhis petition below, Daniels erroneously claimed "[t]he petition is
    being filed within the one year date of the remittitur."
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    ENWIM
    it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed
    on appeal."). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    44.4_7c
    Hardesty
    cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
    Leslie A. Park
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    ,
    171               I IIIMBIEBROMMIfl-