ZOGHEIB v. WILLIAMS (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Zogheib argues the district court erred by denying his July 30, 2019, petition in which he raised claims concerning his probation revocation proceedings. Zogheib filed his petition more than two years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on March 28, 2017, from the district court order revoking probation and third amended judgment of conviction. See Zogheib v. State, Docket No. 70144-COA (Order of Affirmance, February 23, 2017). Thus, Zogheib's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1); Sullivan v. State, 120 Nev. 537, 541, 96 P.3d 761, 764 (2004). Zogheib's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1).

Zogheib argues for the first time in his reply brief on appeal that he has good cause because the district court improperly struck previously filed postconviction petitions. We decline to consider arguments not raised in the district court in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999). And we decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See NRAP 28(c); Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 368 n.53, 91 P.3d 39, 54 n.53 (2004). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court improperly reached the merits of Zogheib's claims. 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 postconviction habeas petitions is mandatory.”). We nevertheless affirm the district court's order because it reached the correct result. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).