Maki (Charles) v. State

 from those raised in his previous petition. 2 See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); 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(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).
To the extent appellant suggested that his procedural bars
should be excused because he needed to exhaust his claims for federal
review, his claim lacked merit. Filing a procedurally barred petition for
exhaustion purposes is not good cause because appellant's claims were
reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition. See Hathaway v.
State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); see also Colley v.
State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
To the extent that appellant claimed that the ineffective
assistance of counsel provided good cause to excuse his procedural defects,
this claim similarly lacked merit. A claim of ineffective assistance of trial
or appellate counsel that is itself procedurally barred cannot constitute
good cause to excuse a procedural defect. See Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252,
71 P.3d at 506, and "noncapital petitioners have no right to the effective
assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings," Brown v. McDaniel,
130 Nev. „ 331 P.3d 867, 871 (2014).
Finally, to the extent appellant suggested that the State's
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), provided good cause to
excuse the procedural bars, his claim lacked merit. Demonstrating a
2 Maki v. State, Docket No 30904 (Order of Affirmance, October 10,
2000).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
meritorious Brady claim may also demonstrate good cause. See State v.
Huebler, 128 Nev. , & n.3, 275 P.3d 91, 95 & n.3 (2012). However,
appellant's Brady claim was a bare allegation devoid of specific facts and
thus could not have allowed for relief. Cf. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498,
502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
J.
cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge
Charles Joseph Maki
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe 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) I947A 0400