MAHMOUD v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mahmoud filed his petition more than two years after entry of the judgment of conviction on September 5, 2019.² Thus, Mahmoud's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Mahmoud's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. Mahmoud failed to allege good cause to overcome the procedural bar. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

FOOTNOTES

2.   Mahmoud did not pursue a direct appeal.

3.   The district court failed to address the procedural bar and instead addressed Mahmoud's claims on the merits. We conclude this was error. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (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.”). We nevertheless affirm the district court's denial of relief for the reasons stated herein. 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).