ANDRE GILLIAM v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Andre Gilliam appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on September 10, 2024, and again filed on December 5, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Maria A. Gall, Judge.

Gilliam filed his petition more than one year after the entry of the judgment of conviction on April 13, 2023.¹ Thus, Gilliam's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, Gilliam's petition was successive because he previously filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was decided on the merits, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition.² See NRS 34.810(3). Gilliam's petition was therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(4).

The district court found Gilliam failed to address good cause and actual prejudice in his petition. The record supports the district court's finding, and Gilliam does not challenge that determination on appeal. We therefore conclude that Gilliam fails to demonstrate the district court erred in denying his petition as procedurally barred. See State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (holding that application of the procedural bars is mandatory). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Gilliam did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. Thus, his deadline for filing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus was April 13, 2024. See NRS 34.726(1).

2.   See Gilliam v. State, No. 89568-COA, 2025 WL 2536401 (Nev. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2025) (Order of Affirmance).

3.   The district court erred to the extent that it found Gilliam's claims were waived pursuant to NRS 34.810(l)(b)(2), as that provision only applies when “[t]he petitioner's conviction was the result of a trial.” Nonetheless, because the district court otherwise reached the correct result, we affirm the denial of Gilliam's petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it was based on the wrong reason).