Bingaman (Craig) v. State

 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Moreover, because the State specifically
pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable
presumption of prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).
Appellant claimed that he had good cause because he lacked
legal training and a formal education and he was deprived of meaningful
access to the prison law library and persons trained in law due to his
housing assignment and the prisons' use of a paging system. Appellant
claimed that he learned in 2012 of the legal basis for his claims but that
he filed a motion to modify and a motion to correct an illegal sentence
instead of a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to poor
advice from an inmate law clerk. Appellant failed to demonstrate an
impediment external to the defense excused his untimely petition. A lack
of legal training or formal education is not an impediment external to the
defense and thus does not provide good cause. See Phelps v. Dir., Nev.
Dep't. of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988).
Appellant failed to demonstrate that his housing assignment or the paging
system provided good cause as he litigated two post-conviction motions
during the time he claimed he had inadequate access. See Hathaway, 119
Nev. at 252-53, 71 P.3d at 506. Bad advice or poor assistance from an
inmate law clerk does not provide good cause. See Phelps, 104 Nev. at
660, 764 P.2d at 1306. Appellant did not attempt to overcome the
presumption of prejudice to the State. Therefore, we conclude that the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred
and barred by laches. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Craig A. Bingaman
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We 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) 1947A def.