TIMOTHY LEE SANDERS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Timothy Lee Sanders appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 30, 2024, and granting the State's motion to dismiss the petition. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.

Sanders filed his petition more than 12 years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on December 14, 2011. Sanders v. State, No. 56404, 2011 WL 5846417 (Nev. Nov. 18, 2011) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Sanders’ petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, Sanders’ petition was successive because he had previously filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was decided on the merits, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petitions.¹ See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(3). Sanders’ petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice, see NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(4), or a showing he is actually innocent such that “the failure to consider the petition on its merits would amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice,” Berry v. State, 131 Nev. 957, 966, 363 P.3d 1148, 1154 (2015).

Further, because the State specifically pleaded laches in its motion to dismiss the petition, Sanders was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2) (presuming the State is prejudiced by a delay of more than five years); see also NRS 34.800(1) (setting forth how a petitioner can overcome prejudice to the State). To overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State that arose from the delay of more than five years, Sanders had to demonstrate both that his “petition is based upon grounds of which [he] could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the State occurred,” NRS 34.800(1)(a), and that “a fundamental miscarriage of justice has occurred in the proceedings resulting in the judgment of conviction,” NRS 34.800(1)(b); see also Mitchell v. State, 122 Nev. 1269, 1273-74, 149 P.3d 33, 36 (2006) (indicating that a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural bars to an untimely or successive petition and to satisfy NRS 34.800(1)(b) can both be satisfied with a showing of actual innocence).

Sanders claimed he had the following newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence such that he suffered a fundamental miscarriage of justice: (1) alibi witnesses, including a woman Sanders stayed with who was noticed as a State witness prior to trial and the woman's mother; and (2) Sanders’ codefendant's pretrial police statement. Sanders did not overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State in responding to the petition because he failed to allege specific facts demonstrating that he could not have had knowledge of this evidence by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the presumption of prejudice to the State arose.² See NRS 34.800(1)(a). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing the petition as barred by laches. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Sanders v. State, No. 64005, 2015 WL 3669862 (Nev. June 10, 2015) (Order of Affirmance). Sanders also filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 5, 2023. He did not appeal from the denial of that petition.

2.   As a result, we need not determine whether Sanders overcame the presumption of prejudice to the State in its ability to retry Sanders. See NRS 34.800(1)(b).

3.   To the extent Sanders raised other arguments not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal.