KNIGHT v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Knight filed her petition on August 31, 2020, more than three years after entry of the judgment of conviction on May 1, 2017.¹ Thus, Knight's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Knight's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice.² See id.

Knight argued she had good cause because her counsel was ineffective during the trial-level proceedings and she recently discovered the errors committed by counsel. The underlying claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were reasonably available to have been raised during the timely filing period for a postconviction petition, and Knight did not demonstrate an impediment external to the defense prevented her from raising the claims in a timely manner. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this good-cause claim.

Knight appears to argue on appeal that the district court erred by denying the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing concerning her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must raise claims supported by specific allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle her to relief. Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1046, 194 P.3d 1224, 1233-34 (2008). Because Knight did not demonstrate cause for her delay, she fails to demonstrate the district court erred by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning her procedurally barred claims. Id. at 1046 n.53, 194 P.3d at 1234 n.53 (noting a district court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning claims that are procedurally barred when the petitioner cannot overcome the procedural bars). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Knight did not pursue a direct appeal.

2.   The district court filed an amended judgment of conviction on January 17, 2020, but entry of the amended judgment of conviction did not provide good cause because all of the claims Knight raised in the instant petition arose out of the proceedings involving her initial judgment of conviction and could have been raised before the judgment of conviction was amended. See Sullivan v. State, 120 Nev. 537, 541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004).