Smith (Taniko) v. State ( 2013 )

 prejudice."). Smith has already exercised his right to a direct appeal and
filed three post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. All three
petitions were untimely. Smith also filed a federal petition for a writ of
habeas corpus which was denied in 2003 and the denial was affirmed by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 before this court's order of
reversal and remand. Finally, contrary to Smith's assertion, direct review
of his conviction concluded when this court affirmed his conviction on the
merits in 1998, well before the three-year delay. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A) (discussing the federal period of limitations); Jimenez v.
Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009) (discussing when conclusion of
direct review occurs). Therefore, Smith has not demonstrated that the
delay in filing the amended judgment of conviction caused him to lose his
right to challenge his conviction in federal or state court or prejudiced his
ability to exercise his rights in any other way.
As to Smith's claim that the aiding-and-abetting jury
instruction violated his rights under Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 56
P.3d 868 (2002), and Mitchell v. State, 122 Nev. 1269, 149 P.3d 33 (2006),
this claim was previously resolved in our order of reversal and remand, see
Smith v. State, Docket No. 50122 (January 20, 2009), and is therefore
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
-
barred by the doctrine of law of the case, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314,
315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). 1 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgiunt of conviction AFFIRMED.
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Joel M. Mann, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
other claims are not properly raised in this appeal. See
1 Smith's
NRAP 28(a)(9); NRAP 28(e)(2); NRAP 28(j) ("Briefs that are not in
compliance may be disregarded. . . on motion or sua sponte by the court");
see also Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994)
(explaining that "claims that are appropriate for a direct appeal must be
pursued on direct appeal, or they will be considered waived in subsequent
proceedings"), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev.
148, 150, 979 P.2d 222, 223-24 (1999); Rippo v. State, 122 Nev. 1086, 1095,
146 P.3d 279, 285 (2006) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of trial or
appellate counsel are properly raised for the first time in a timely first
post-conviction petition.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
N EVADA
(0) 1947A
3
11.XTeg. . W4=1- 1:4-4X€2 -
1 ;•••••!4,-
.;;;-,_