demonstrate good cause to excuse the procedural bars, see NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(3), and dismissed his petition. 

Atkins contends that the district court erred by concluding 

that he failed to demonstrate good cause and by doing so without 

conducting an evidentiary hearing. When reviewing a district court's 

determination regarding good cause, we give deference to its factual 

findings but review its legal conclusions de novo. State v. Huebler, 128 

Nev. „ 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 133 S. Ct. 

988 (2013). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he "asserts 

specific factual allegations that are not belied or repelled by the record and 

that, if true, would entitle him to relief." Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 

1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008). 

First, Atkins contends that the district court erred by 

concluding that post-conviction counsel's ineffectiveness did not constitute 

good cause to excuse the procedural bars. We disagree. Although the 

ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel may provide cause to file a 

successive petition where, as here, the appointment of post-conviction 

counsel was mandated by NRS 34.820(1), McKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 

159, 164-65, 912 P.2d 255, 258 (1996), the claim must be raised in a timely 

fashion. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 

(2003). Because the instant petition was filed more than seven years after 

this court resolved the appeal involving his first post-conviction petition, 

see Atkins v. State, Docket No. 37292 (Order of Affirmance, May 14, 2002), 

and Atkins failed to demonstrate how post-conviction counsel's deficiencies 

precluded him from filing the instant petition within a reasonable time, 

we conclude that the district court did not err by determining that this 

ground was insufficient to excuse the procedural bars. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ea 
Second, Atkins contends that the district court erred by 

concluding that his low intelligence did not constitute good cause to excuse 

the procedural bars. We disagree. Atkins filed his first, timely petition in 

proper person, which belies any suggestion that his low intelligence 

precluded him from filing a petition within a reasonable time. But 

regardless, a petitioner's low intelligence is not an impediment external to 

the defense and is not sufficient cause to excuse the procedural bars, 

Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 

1306 (1988). We conclude that the district court did not err by 

determining that this ground was insufficient to excuse the procedural 

bars. 

Third, Atkins contends that the district court erred by 

concluding that his pursuit of relief in federal court did not constitute good 

cause to excuse the procedural bars. We conclude that the district court 

did not err by determining that this ground was insufficient to excuse the 

procedural bars. See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 

1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by 

Huebler, 128 Nev. at n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2. 

Fourth, Atkins contends that the district court erred by 

concluding that the holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 

(2004), which was announced after he filed his first petition, did not 

constitute good cause to excuse the procedural bars. We disagree for two 

reasons. First, Atkins filed the instant petition almost five years after 

Crawford was announced, and therefore failed to raise this claim in a 

reasonable time. See Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252-53, 71 P.3d at 506. 

Second, Crawford does not apply retroactively on collateral review of a 

conviction, such as Atkins', that was final before Crawford was decided. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 19474 ae 
C.J. 

1 NCAAPickering 

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 417 (2007). We conclude that the 

district court did not err by determining that this ground was insufficient 

to excuse the procedural bars. 

Because the district court correctly concluded that Atkins 

failed to demonstrate good cause and that he was not entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

012.3 J. 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

( 

tez.Ati, J. 

Hardesty 

Dmiraf21141SJ. 

, J. 

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Marc Picker 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

10) 1947A en