Tiffany (David) v. State

 See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was
procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and prejudice.
See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).
In an attempt to excuse his procedural defects, appellant
claimed that the United States Supreme Court decisions in Lafler v.
Cooper, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 566
U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), provided good cause to raise his claim
that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure or communicate plea
offers. Appellant asserted that, because these two cases were decided on
March 21, 2012—after he filed his first post-conviction petition for a writ
of habeas corpus—he could not have raised this ineffective-assistance
claim in his earlier petition. Appellant's good-cause argument was
without merit because his case was final when Cooper and Frye were
decided, and he failed to demonstrate that the cases would apply
retroactively to him. Even if Cooper and Frye announced new rules of
constitutional law, he failed to allege facts to support that he met either
exception to the general principle that such rules do not apply
retroactively to cases which were already final when the new rules were
announced. See Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 816-17, 59 P.3d 463, 469-
70 (2002).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Be6ause the petition was procedurally barred and appellant
failed to demo.strate good cause, we conclude that the district court did
not err in denying the petition. 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
, J
Douglas
\
Saitta
Id
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
David J. Tiffany
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We note that the district court erred in finding that it lacked
jurisdiction ovr the petition because the appeal from appellant's first
post-conviction habeas petition was pending in this court. We
nevertheless affirm because the district court reached the correct result in
denying the petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338,
341 (1970).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
IIEZZESE2111111 , t• 47:474• 7 _ 1.4 7
4 ' Arr:11 Att