Opinion
No. 64736
09-17-2014
CHARLES B. HARRIS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE AND DISMISSING APPEAL IN PART
This is a proper person appeal from an order denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valorie J. Vega, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
To the extent that appellant appealed from the denial of a motion for default judgment, motion to reconsider denial of motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and motion to take judicial notice, these decisions are not appealable. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990).
Appellant filed his petition on February 29, 2012, and amended the petition on May 30, 2012, within the one-year period to file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. However, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously litigated a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and it constituted an abuse of the writ to the extent that he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.810(3).
Harris v. State, Docket No. 60289 (Order of Affirmance, November 15, 2012).
--------
Appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse his procedural defects because he lacked legal knowledge and his case was difficult and complex. Appellant's lack of knowledge about the law and the alleged complexities of the case did not constitute good cause. Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988).
Next, appellant claimed that the State withheld and concealed the fact that there was no complaining witness in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Appellant asserted that he only learned of this fact when he received his file from counsel. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause and actual prejudice because he failed to demonstrate exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense and that the evidence was material. See State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. ___, ___, 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) (recognizing that a Brady claim raised in an untimely petition requires the petitioner to demonstrate that the State withheld evidence (to demonstrate cause) and to establish that the evidence was material (to demonstrate prejudice)).
Next, appellant argued that the procedural bar did not apply because the court lacked jurisdiction as there was no complaining witness. Appellant's claims were not supported by the record, see Hargrove v. State, 1.00 Nev. 498, 686 P.2d 222 (1984), and did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts, see Nev. Const, art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010.
Finally, appellant claimed that he could overcome application of the procedural bar because he was actually innocent. Appellant did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of . . . new evidence." Calderon u. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also 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). We therefore conclude that the petition was procedurally barred pursuant to NRS 34.810. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and DISMISS the appeal in part.
/s/_________, J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Charles B. Harris
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk