LATTIN v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Lattin filed his petition on June 4, 2020, more than one year after entry of the judgment of conviction on May 10, 2019.¹ Thus, Lattin's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Lattin's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. Lattin did not attempt to demonstrate cause for his delay. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying the petition as procedurally barred.

Next, the district court denied Lattin's request for the appointment of postconviction counsel. The appointment of counsel in this matter was discretionary. See NRS 34.750(1). When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the district court may consider factors, including whether the issues presented are difficult, whether the petitioner is unable to comprehend the proceedings, or whether counsel is necessary to proceed with discovery. Id. However, the issues in this matter were not difficult, Lattin was able to comprehend the proceedings, and discovery with the aid of counsel was not necessary. See NRS 34.750(1); Renteria-Novoa v. State, 133 Nev. 75, 76, 391 P.3d 760, 761 (2017). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Lattin did not pursue a direct appeal.