VILLA CARDENAS v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Villa-Cardenas filed his petition more than 26 years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on March 18, 1998. See Villa-Cardenas v. State, Docket No. 28131 (Order Dismissing Appeal, February 27, 1998). Thus, Villa-Cardenas’ petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, Villa-Cardenas’ 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.² See NRS 34.810(3). Villa-Cardenas’ petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(4). Villa-Cardenas did not allege good cause to overcome the procedural bars. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   See Villa-Cardenas v. State, No. 75402-COA, 2018 WL 5791880 (Nev. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2018) (Order of Affirmance); Villa-Cardenas v. State, Docket No. 33544 (Order of Affirmance, February 22, 2001).