MIXON v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mixon argues that the district court erred by denying his February 3, 2022, petition as procedurally barred. Mixon filed his petition more than one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on April 13, 2020. See Mixon v. State, No. 78900-COA, 2020 WL 1487193 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2020) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Mixon's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Mixon's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.

First, Mixon asserted that he had cause for the delay due to the ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. “[I]n order to constitute adequate cause, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim itself must not be procedurally defaulted.” Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Mixon's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was itself procedurally barred because he raised it in an untimely manner. And Mixon did not demonstrate an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising his claim at an earlier time. See id. at 252-53, 71 P.3d at 506. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this good-cause claim.

Second, Mixon appeared to assert that he had cause for his delay because he represented himself during the plea negotiations. This claim was reasonably available to have been raised in a timely filed petition, and Mixon did not demonstrate an impediment external to the defense prevented him from doing so. Id. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this good-cause claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.