Barton (Ross) v. State

 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 first argues that Rose v. State, 127 Nev. , 255
P.3d 291 (2011), which discussed the second-degree-felony-murder
doctrine, provides good cause for his claim that the trial court improperly
instructed the jury regarding second-degree felony murder. Appellant also
argues that Rose has retroactive effect and that the district court erred by
failing to conclude that appellant should receive a new trial based upon
retroactive application of Rose. Appellant's claim is without merit.
Appellant's reliance upon Rose is misplaced as the State did not rely upon
the second-degree-felony-murder rule. Rather, the State presented
evidence of appellant's mental state, arguing that he acted with the intent
to kill. This court determined on appellant's direct appeal that there was
substantial evidence that appellant intended to kill the victim. Barton v.
State, Docket No. 27076 (Order Dismissing Appeal, December 20, 1996).
As there was substantial evidence that appellant intended to kill the
victim, a later case discussing the second-degree-felony-murder rule, such
as Rose, has no bearing upon appellant's case. Accordingly, appellant fails
to demonstrate that Rose provides goodS cause and actual prejudice to
overcome the procedural bars. 2
2 Appellant also argues that error regarding the second-degree-
felony-murder instruction is structural error and therefore, he is entitled
to a new trial without a consideration of prejudice related to this claim.
Appellant's claim is without merit. As discussed in Rose, this court
reviews claims regarding erroneous instructions for second-degree felony
continued on next page . . .
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cfer()
Second, appellant argues that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.
132 S. Ct. 1309, 1315, 1319-20 (2012), provides good cause to
overcome the procedural bars. However, appellant merely cites to
Martinez and does not discuss how that case would provide good cause or
how his case was affected by the holding of Martinez. Accordingly,
appellant fails to provide any cogent argument as to how Martinez applies
to his case. "It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority
and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by
this court." Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
Thus, we need not address this claim.
In addition, appellant fails to overcome the presumption of
prejudice to the State. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying
the petition as procedurally barred and barred by ladies. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
J.
Douglas Cherry
. . continued
murder under a harmless error standard. 127 Nev. at 255 P.3d at
295, 298.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Nguyen & Lay
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 19474 ce