Hatfield (Gregory) v. State C/W 66489

 2009). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1).
Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously
litigated 2 post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and it
constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different
from those raised in his previous petitions. 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). A petitioner may be entitled to review
of defaulted claims if failure to review the claims would result in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice. Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842,
921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). In order to demonstrate a fundamental
miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable showing of
actual innocence of the crime. Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34
P.3d 519, 537 (2001).
Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause to excuse
his procedural defects. Rather, appellant argued that he was actually
innocent. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he
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, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan,
112 Nev. at 842, 921 P.2d at 922. We therefore conclude that the district
court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred,
and we affirm the order of the district court.
2 Hatfieldv. Warden, Docket No. 57351 (Order of Affirmance,
September 15, 2011); Hatfield v. LeGrand, Docket No. 62684 (Order of
Affirmance, September 16, 2014).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (e-
Docket No. 66489
In his motion filed on July 30, 2014, appellant claimed that
the district court was without jurisdiction because he was actually
innocent of the crime, the charging information was insufficient, the jury
instructions were inadequate, and he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Appellant's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims
permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v.
State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without
considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Parraguirre
Cksut.
Cherry
, J.
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted 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
(01 1947A e
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
Gregory Allen Hatfield
Nye County District Attorney
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 4
(U) 1947A 0