AWBREY v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Awbrey filed his petition more than one year after the entry of the judgment of conviction on January 19, 2024.² Thus, Awbrey's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Awbrey's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. Awbrey did not allege in his petition below good cause to overcome the procedural bar. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Awbrey's petition.³ See Chappell v. State, 137 Nev. 780, 787, 501 P.3d 935, 949 (2021) (providing that “a petitioner's explanation of good cause and prejudice for each procedurally barred claim must be made on the face of the petition”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Because Awbrey's direct appeal was dismissed as untimely, see Awbrey v. State, No. 88287, 2024 WL 2237672 (Nev. May 16, 2024) (Order Dismissing Appeal), the operative date for the timely filing of his postconviction habeas petition was one year from the date the judgment of conviction was entered, see Dickerson v. State, 114 Nev. 1084, 1087, 967 P.2d 1132, 1133-34 (1998) (construing NRS 34.726(1) “to mean that the one-year period for filing a post-conviction habeas petition begins to run from the issuance of the remittitur from a timely direct appeal to this court from the judgment of conviction or from the entry of the judgment of conviction if no direct appeal is taken”).

3.   Application of the procedural bars is mandatory. 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.”). Because Awbrey's petition was untimely filed and Awbrey did not allege good cause to overcome the procedural bar, the district court erred in considering Awbrey's petition on its merits. We nevertheless affirm the district court's denial of the petition. 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).