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, 2 and 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

2 Costantino 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 

### eState 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

3 We 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