BATTLE v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Battle's petition was untimely because it was filed more than three years after the remittitur on direct appeal was issued on September 7, 2016,¹ see NRS 34.726(1), and it was successive because Battle previously filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was decided on the merits,² see NRS 34.810(2). These procedural bars are unexcused because Battle made no attempt to show good cause for filing a late and successive petition.³ See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Battle's petition, 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), and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.⁴

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Battle v. State, Docket No. 68744 (Order of Affirmance, August 10, 2016).

2.   See Battle v. State, Docket No. 74773-COA (Order of Affirmance, January 17, 2019).

3.   Battle claims on appeal there was good cause to excuse his procedural bars. However, he did not raise these good cause claims in his petition, and we decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-23, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

4.   We deny Battle's “[m]otion to stay the proceedings and or to continue his case for the next six months.”