Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HAROLD DEAN LEVENTRY, JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Harold Dean Leventry, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court dismissing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; David A. Hardy, Judge.
Leventry filed his petition on January 27, 2023, more than two years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on August 18, 2020. See Leventry v. State, No. 79318-COA, 2020 WL 4284330 (Nev. Ct. App. July 24, 2020) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Leventry's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Leventry's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.
Leventry claimed that legislative changes to NRS 453.3385 provided him with good cause. Leventry filed his petition more than two years after the July 1, 2020, effective date of the changes. See 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 633, § 137, at 4488. Leventry's claim was reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition, and he did not demonstrate an impediment external to the defense prevented him from doing so. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this good-cause claim. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).
Leventry argues on appeal that the State did not serve him with its motion to dismiss his petition. A certificate of mailing contained in the record states that Leventry was served by mail with the State's motion, and Leventry does not allege errors related to that certificate. As a separate and independent ground to deny relief, Leventry fails to allege what he would have argued in a response to the State's motion and thus fails to demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected. See NRS 178.598 (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”). Accordingly, we conclude Leventry is not entitled to relief based on this claim. Therefore, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons, C.J.
Bulla, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 86315-COA
Decided: August 28, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)