in his previous petitions. 2 See NRS 34.810(1)(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). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, 

appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of 

prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). 

First, appellant appeared to assert that he had good cause 

because he believed that this court erred in concluding that an amended 

judgment of conviction filed on August 12, 2010, did not provide good 

cause to challenge the original judgment of conviction. This court has 

already considered and twice rejected the underlying claim. See 

Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 58136 (Order of Affirmance, September 

14, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 57332 (Order of Affirmance, 

June 8, 2011). Reconsideration of this claim is barred by the doctrine of 

law of the case, which "cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely 

focused argument." Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 

(1975). While appellant claimed that this court erred in its disposition of 

this issue, appellant failed to demonstrate that the law of the case should 

not be applied. See Tien Fu Hsu v. Cnty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630-31, 

'Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 58136 (Order of Affirmance, 

September 14, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 57332 (Order of 

Affirmance, June 8, 2011); Braunstein v. State, Docket No. 46609 (Order of 

Affirmance, December 5, 2006). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 19474 aeo 
173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (discussing when the doctrine of the law of the 

case should not be applied). 

Second, appellant attempted to overcome the procedural bars 

by characterizing his petition as a "First Amendment" petition. However, 

this lacked merit, as appellant failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional 

prior restraint of his First Amendment rights. See NRS 34.185. 

Third, appellant claimed that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to convict him and asserted that the procedural bars did not 

apply to this claim because jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. 

Appellant's claim lacked merit because his claim did not implicate the 

jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. 

Fourth, appellant claimed that he suffered from a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. In order to demonstrate a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable 

showing of actual innocence—factual innocence, not legal innocence. 

Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001); Calderon v. 

Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998). Appellant did not demonstrate 

actual innocence as his claims involved legal innocence, and therefore, 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, 523 

U.S. at 559 (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also 

Pellegrini, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 

838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I94Th 
C.J. 

Finally, appellant failed to overcome the presumption of 

prejudice to the State. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying 

the petition. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

/c-IcAA •-e4-4-1.1 , J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Steven Samuel Braunstein 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COMM' 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A