was therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause 

and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Further, 

because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to 

overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2). 

First, appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse the 

procedural bars because he was challenging the jurisdiction of the district 

court and such claims may be raised at any time. Appellant's claims did 

not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; 

NRS 171.010. Appellant's bare allegation that his remaining claims may 

also be raised at any time was similarly without merit. 

Second, appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse 

the procedural bars because his absence at the hearings during which the 

district court ruled on his 1994 and 2009 post-conviction petitions 

rendered the orders reflecting those rulings void. Appellant's claim was 

patently without merit. Appellant did not demonstrate any right to attend 

hearings where no evidence was taken. See Gebers v. State, 118 Nev. 500, 

503-04, 50 P.3d 1092, 1094 (2002). Moreover, even if appellant's argument 

were valid, it would not have explained the delay in filing the instant 

petition. 

Third, appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse the 

procedural bars because he believed that counsel had properly informed 

...continued 

former NRS 177.315 or from the denial of his March 15, 2012, proper 

person post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Appellant's claims that the instant petition is merely an amendment 

to the March 15, 2012, petition were without merit as the district court did 

not grant him permission to amend the petition. See NRS 34.750(5). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 

Inaini`=12ffil 
him of the law regarding sentencing enhancements. Appellant's ignorance 

of the law did not excuse the procedural bars. Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of 

Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988). To the extent 

appellant claimed that ineffective assistance of counsel excused his delay, 

that claim was itself untimely such that it could not afford good cause. 

Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). 

Fourth, appellant claimed that the recent United States 

Supreme Court Case, Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1376 

(2012), provided good cause to excuse the procedural bars. Appellant's 

argument was without merit because his case was final when Lafier was 

decided, and he failed to demonstrate that it would apply retroactively to 

him. Even if Lafler did announce a new rule of constitutional law, 

appellant failed to allege facts to support either exception to the general 

principle that such rules do not apply retroactively to cases which were 

already final when the new rules were announced. See Colwell v. State, 

118 Nev. 807, 816-17, 59 P.3d 463, 469-70 (2002). 

Finally, appellant claimed that the district court had already 

determined that he had demonstrated good cause. Appellant's claim was 

belied by the record. Appellant misquoted the order, which simply 

directed the State to respond to appellant's petition. 

Appellant also attempted to overcome his procedural defects 

by arguing that he is actually innocent of the deadly weapon 

enhancement. 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 v. 

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, 
J. 

537 (2001); Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 

(1996). Further, appellant failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice 

to the State pursuant to NRS 34.800(2). We therefore conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally 

barred. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge 

Darryl Orlandus Clark 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4