HAIRSTON v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Leonard Morgan Hairston appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 1, 2018. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge.

Hairston's petition was untimely because it was filed more than two years after the remittitur on direct appeal was issued on April 19, 2016.¹ See NRS 34.726(1). Consequently, Hairston's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause-cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. Hairston made no attempt to demonstrate good cause; therefore, the district court did not err by denying his petition as procedurally barred. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (explaining that the application of procedural bars is mandatory). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Hairston v. State, Docket No. 68404-COA (Order of Affirmance, March 16, 2016). Hairston did not pursue appeals from the amended judgment of conviction entered on October 4, 2016, and the second amended judgment of conviction entered on April 2, 2018. See generally Sullivan v. State, 120 Nev. 537, 541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2009) (concluding the statutory time limit for filing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not automatically restart simply because the district court entered an amended judgment of conviction).