HAKIM RYDELL BRANCHE JONES HAKIM RYDELL JONES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hakim Rydell Branche-Jones appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus ¹ filed on January 3, 2025. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.

Branche-Jones argues the district court erred by denying his petition as procedurally barred without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Branche-Jones filed his petition more than one year after entry of the judgment of conviction on December 18, 2023. Thus, Branche-Jones’ petition was untimely filed.² See NRS 34.726(1). Branche-Jones’ 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) and concluding a petition filed days after the one-year deadline was untimely).

Branche-Jones first contends his petition was timely filed because he handed it to prison officials before the one-year filing deadline. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has declined to extend the prison mailbox rule to postconviction habeas petitions. See Gonzales, 118 Nev. at 593-95, 53 P.3d at 903-04. Thus, even if Branche-Jones gave his petition to prison officials before the deadline, the petition was not filed for purposes of NRS 34.726 until it was actually received by the district court.

Branche-Jones also contends he has good cause for the untimely petition because the prison in which he was incarcerated was on lockdown and because he thought counsel was going to file a direct appeal after Branche-Jones expressed dissatisfaction at the sentencing hearing. These claims were not raised in the proceedings below, and Branche-Jones has not asserted any good cause for failing to raise them earlier. Accordingly, we need not address these claims. See Hill v. State, 114 Nev. 169, 178. 953 P.2d 1077, 1084 (1998). For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Branche-Jones’ petition as procedurally barred without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1046 n.53, 194 P.3d 1224, 1234 n.53 (2008) (noting a district court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning claims that are procedurally barred when the petitioner cannot overcome the procedural bars). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Branche-Jones titled his pleading as a “motion/memorandum of law in support of habeas corpus petition pursuant to NRS Chapter 34.” The district court properly construed the motion as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Harris v. State, 130 Nev. 435, 448-49, 329 P.3d 619, 628 (2014).

2.   Branche-Jones’ petition was received by the district court clerk on December 24, 2024, but was not filed until January 3, 2025. See Sullivan, v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 111 Nev. 1367, 1371, 904 P.2d 1039, 1041 (1995) (explaining that ”[t]his court has several times confirmed the absolute obligation of the district courts to file documents submitted to them”); Bowman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 102 Nev. 474, 478, 728 P.2d 433, 435 (1986) (“The clerk has a ministerial duty to accept and file documents.”). However, even using December 24, 2024, as the operative filing date, Branche-Jones’ petition was filed more than one year after entry of the judgment of conviction.