GEROLD CENTENO v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Gerold Centeno appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on December 6, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

Centeno filed his petition over three years after the district court entered his judgment of conviction.¹ Thus, Centeno's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Centeno's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1). A petitioner's good-cause claims must be supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. See Berry v. State, 131 Nev. 957, 967, 363 P.3d 1148, 1154-55 (2015).

Centeno claimed counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal amounted to good cause to excuse his untimely petition. Centeno did not demonstrate good cause. Given that Centeno explicitly waived his right to file a direct appeal in the guilty plea agreement, Centeno failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that he reasonably believed an appeal was pending during the timely-filing period. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 254-55, 71 P.3d 503, 507-08 (2003) (providing that a petitioner can establish good cause “if the petitioner establishes that the petitioner reasonably believed that counsel had filed an appeal and that the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition within a reasonable time after learning that a direct appeal had not been filed” (emphasis added)). Further, even assuming Centeno showed he reasonably believed an appeal was pending during the timely-filing period.² Centeno did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate he filed his petition within a reasonable time of learning no appeal had been taken. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Centeno did not appeal from his judgment of conviction.

2.   The district court found that Centeno made “no assertion that he had either directed his counsel to file a direct appeal or that his counsel should have known that he wanted to file a direct appeal.” This determination is not supported by the record based on the allegations alone. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's order because it reached the correct result. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 33, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason).