CHRISTOPHER EDWARD PIGEON v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Christopher Edward Pigeon appeals from a district court order denying his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on March 19, 2025. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.

Pigeon filed his petition more than six years after the entry of his amended judgment of conviction on May 29, 2018.¹ Thus, Pigeon's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1); see also Sullivan v. State, 120 Nev. 537, 541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004) (explaining that claims that “challenge the proceedings leading to a substantive amendment to the judgment” should be raised “within one year of the entry of the amended judgment”). Further, Pigeon's petition was successive because he previously filed postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on May 24, 2021, and April 28, 2022, that were decided on the merits by the district court.² See NRS 34.810(3). Pigeon's 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 that 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).

Pigeon did not assert in his petition that he had good cause to overcome the procedural bars. Accordingly, Pigeon did not meet his burden to plead good cause sufficient to overcome the procedural bars. See NRS 34.810(4); State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 181, 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003). To the extent Pigeon's argument that the 2019 amendments to NRS 207.010 apply retroactively to his sentence could be construed as an argument that the legal basis for his claim was not reasonably available to be raised in a timely petition, see Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 621, 81 P.3d 521, 525-26 (2003), we conclude such argument fails because the supreme court has held that the legislature did not intend to apply the amendments to NRS 207.010 retroactively, see Dawson v. State, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 72, 559 P.3d 356, 359 (2024) (concluding that the 2019 amendments to NRS 207.010 do not apply retroactively and that “the operative statute for habitual criminal adjudication is the one in effect when the charged crime was committed”). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition as procedurally barred.³ Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Pigeon did not appeal from the amended judgment of conviction. Thus, his deadline for filing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus was May 29, 2019. See NRS 34.726(1).

2.   Pigeon did not appeal from the district court's denial of either his May 24, 2021, or April 28, 2022, postconviction habeas petitions.

3.   During the pendency of this appeal, Pigeon submitted a filing to the court entitled “order reversing writ decision, granting retroactive status, and remanding for immediate discharge” with this court. Given our disposition of this matter, we deny the relief requested in his filing.