LINDER v. OLIVER (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Linder filed his petition more than 18 years after the entry of his judgment of conviction on November 14, 2005.² Thus, Linder's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, Linder's 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 in his previous petitions.³ See NRS 34.810(3). Linder's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1), NRS 34.810(4).

Further, because the State specifically pleaded laches, Linder 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). To overcome that presumption, Linder was required 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).

In his petition, Linder claimed that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in convicting him of second-degree murder, that he entered an Alford plea under duress, and that his signature on the guilty plea agreement was forged. Linder did not allege good cause to overcome the procedural bars. He also failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the State. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Linder did not file a direct appeal.

3.   See Linder v. State, Docket No. 48369 (Order of Affirmance, Apr. 24, 2007); Linder v. State, No. 85021-COA, 2023 WL 2922134 (Nev. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2023) (Order of Affirmance).