KENDRICK LADELL WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA AND JEREMY BEAN WARDEN HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Kendrick Ladell Williams appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on May 9, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.

Williams filed his petition more than one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on April 18, 2023. See Williams v. State, No. 83812, 2023 WL 2661589 (Nev. Mar. 24, 2023) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Williams’ petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Williams’ petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. “[A] petitioner's explanation of good cause and prejudice for each procedurally barred claim must be made on the face of the petition.” Chappell v. State, 137 Nev. 780, 787, 501 P.3d 935, 949 (2021). Williams did not allege in his petition below good cause to overcome the procedural bar.¹ Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Williams’ petition. See State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (“Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory.”). Accordingly,² we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Williams alleges good cause in his pro se notices of appeal, such argument is improperly raised, and we do not consider it. See NRAP 3(c) (providing the contents of a notice of appeal); NRAP 28(k) (stating an appellant “proceeding without assistance of counsel may file the form brief provided by the clerk of the Supreme Court in lieu of the brief described in Rule 28(a)”); see also State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989) (“This court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”).

2.   Having determined that Williams’ petition was procedurally barred and that Williams failed to allege good cause, we further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’ motion for the appointment of counsel. See NRS 34.750(1); Renteria-Novoa v. State, 133 Nev. 75, 76, 391 P.3d 760, 761 (2017).