merit. NRS 193.165, at the time he was convicted, provided for "a term 

equal to and in addition to the term of imprisonment prescribed by statute 

for the crime. The sentence prescribed by this section runs consecutively 

with the sentence prescribed by statute for the crime." 1991 Nev. Stat., 

ch. 403, § 6, at 1059. Appellant is lawfully confined and habeas relief is 

not warranted as he has not completed serving the sentence for the deadly 

weapon enhancement and has not been granted parole from the sentence 

for the deadly weapon enhancement. 

To the extent that appellant challenged the validity of the 

judgment of conviction, appellant's petition was procedurally barred as the 

petition was untimely filed (more than 17 years after issuance of the 

remittitur from his direct appeal in Costantino v. State, Docket No. 28854 

(Order Dismissing Appeal, February 26, 1997)), an abuse of the writ as 

appellant raised claims new and different from those previously litigated 

in prior petitions, 2and appellant's arguments regarding NRS 193.165 and 

the effect of his having expired the sentence for the primary offense did 

not provide good cause to excuse the procedural defects. See NRS 

34.726(1); NRS 34.810(2), (3); Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 

P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must afford a legal 

excuse). Further, the petition was barred by NRS 34.800(2) because the 

2Costantino v. State, Docket Nos. 30734, 31276 (Order Dismissing 

Appeals, December 10, 1999); Costantino v. State, Docket No. 42609 

(Order of Affirmance, August 23, 2004); Costantino v. State, Docket No. 

47986 (Order of Affirmance, January 8, 2007); Costantino v. State, Docket 

Nos. 51868, 52048 (Order of Affirmance, January 8, 2009); Costantino v. 

State, Docket Nos. 52565, 52566, 52596 (Order of Affirmance, May 1, 

2009); Costantino v. State, Docket No. 56515 (Order of Affirmance, 

January 13, 2011). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) [947A e 
State specifically pleaded laches and appellant failed to overcome the 

presumption of prejudice to the State. 

To the extent that appellant challenged the computation of 

time served and the application of statutory good time credits to the 

enhancement sentence, appellant's petition was improperly filed in the 

Eighth Judicial District Court as he is incarcerated in Ely State Prison 

within the boundaries of the Seventh Judicial District Court. See NRS 

34.738(1). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the jirl,gment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

at &5c 

Parraguirre 

—ouglas 

J. 

Cherry 

CISLA," 'J. 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Derek Anthony Costantino 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3We have reviewed the documents attached to the notice of appeal, 

and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. 

To the extent that appellant has attempted to present amended claims or 

facts in those submissions which were not previously presented to the 

district court, we decline to consider them in the first instance. The 

hearing conducted on August 27, 2014, was not an evidentiary hearing 

and no parties were listed as being present. We conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in not having appellant transported for 

this hearing. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A