HEARRING v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hearring filed his petition nearly eight years after entry of the judgment of conviction on December 20, 2013.¹ Thus, Hearring's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Hearring's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.

Hearring argues the district court erred by denying his petition as procedurally barred because he demonstrated good cause. Hearring claimed he had good cause because the district court erred by not construing his 2014 motion to withdraw guilty plea as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hearring raised this good cause claim in a prior petition, and this court concluded it did not constitute good cause to overcome the procedural bar. Hearring v. State, No. 78791-COA, 2019 WL 7161736 (Nev. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2019) (Order of Affirmance). Therefore, this good cause claim was barred by the doctrine of law of the case, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975), and we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition as procedurally barred.² Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

FOOTNOTES

1.   No direct appeal was taken.

2.   Hearring also failed to demonstrate the district court erred by denying his petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing on his substantive claims. See Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1046 n.53, 194 P.3d 1224, 1234 n.53 (2008) (“The court may also reject a substantive postconviction claim without an evidentiary hearing when the claim is procedurally barred and the defendant cannot overcome the procedural bar.”).

3.   The Honorable Jerome T. Tao did not participate in the decision in this matter.