Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Erick Marquis BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.
Appellant filed his petition on April 30, 2018, more than ten years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on October 9, 2007. Brown v. State, Docket No. 47856 (Order of Affirmance, September 13, 2007). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously litigated two postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petitions.2 See NRS 34.810(l)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3).
Based on our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred. Appellant failed to provide any cogent good cause argument explaining the delay or the reason for a successive petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must be an impediment external to the defense). Appellant claimed that he was actually innocent because Nevada Supreme Court justices participated on a commission created in 1951 to revise Nevada's statutes. That argument lacks merit as it does not implicate the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction, see Nev. Const. art. 6 § 6, NRS 171.010, or demonstrate appellant's innocence, see Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998); Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. This appeal has been submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3), (g); see also NRAP 31(d)(1); Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
2. Brown v. State, Docket No. 64907 (Order of Affirmance, June 11, 2014); Brown v. State, Docket No. 60197 (Order of Affirmance, January 16, 2013).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 76588
Decided: May 15, 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)