KING v. NEVEN (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

King's petition was filed more than five years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on April 16, 2015. See King v. State, No. 65462-COA, 2015 WL 1359504 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, King's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, King's petition constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition.¹ See NRS 34.810(2). King's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Further, because the State specifically pleaded laches, King was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2).

On appeal, King claims official interference and new case law constitute good cause. Because these good-cause claims were not raised in his petition below, we decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999); see also NRS 34.735 (requiring a petitioner to plead good cause on the face of the petition). Moreover, King makes no argument regarding laches. Therefore, we conclude King has failed to demonstrate the district court erred by denying his petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See King v. State, No. 72398-COA, 2018 WL 1053333 (Nev. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2018) (Order of Affirmance).