CLARK v. NAJERA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Clark filed his petition more than one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on July 12, 2022. See Clark v. State, No. 83303, 2022 WL 2197116 (Nev. June 17, 2022) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Clark's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Clark's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.; see also Gonzales v. State, 118 Nev. 590, 593-96, 53 P.3d 901, 902-04 (2002) (strictly construing the one-year deadline imposed in NRS 34.726(1), declining to adopt the prison mailbox rule to the filing of postconviction habeas petitions, and concluding that a petition filed days after the one-year deadline was untimely). Clark failed to allege good cause to overcome the procedural bar. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his petition.¹

Clark also appears to raise additional claims for the first time on appeal. Because Clark did not raise these claims below, we decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. See State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989). Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court failed to address the procedural bar and instead denied the petition on the merits. We conclude this was error. 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.”). We nevertheless affirm the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated herein. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason).