SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

Appellant's reliance upon the Chambers decision was 

misplaced as Chambers did not announce any new proposition, but rather 

discussed and applied decisions entered previously. Specifically, the 

Chambers court discussed and applied the decision in Polk, which itself 

discussed this court's decision in Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 994 P.2d 

700 (2000). Because it is the substantive holdings in Polk and Byford that 

appellant sought to apply in this case, it is those cases that provide the 

marker for filing timely claims and not the later case, Chambers, which 

merely discussed and applied those cases. Appellant's 2009 petition was 

filed almost two years after entry of Polk and more than nine years after 

this court's decision in Byford. Under these circumstances, appellant 

failed to demonstrate good cause for the entire length of his delay. 

Appellant's reliance upon the Byford decision is further 

misplaced. The Byford decision addressed use of an instruction discussed 

in Kazalyn v. State, 108 Nev. 67, 825 P.2d 578 (1992), a case decided by 

this court six years after appellant was convicted. The Kazalyn 

instruction was not used in appellant's trial. Even assuming, without 

deciding, that the instructions given in appellant's trial were similar to the 

Kazalyn instruction, appellant cannot demonstrate error as use of the 

instruction would not have been error in this case because appellant's 

conviction was final before this court's decision that the Kazalyn 

instruction should not be given. See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1284- 

85, 198 P.3d 839, 848 (2008); see also Griffith V. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 

322-23 (1987) (discussing that new rules are applied to criminal cases that 

are pending on direct appeal and, therefore, not yet final). 

Further, this court concluded on direct appeal that there was 

overwhelming evidence of appellant's "involvement in the planning, 
we 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 

Saitta 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

ERRORS 

execution and cover-up of the murder." Yates, 103 Nev. at 206, 734 P.2d at 

1256. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate actual prejudice related to 

the deliberation and premeditation instructions. Accordingly, the district 

court did not err in concluding that appellant failed to overcome the 

procedural bars. 

Second, appellant argues he has good cause because he does 

not have legal training, relies on fellow prisoners for legal assistance, and 

has lost legal paperwork while incarcerated. This fails to demonstrate 

good cause for filing an untimely post-conviction petition as appellant fails 

to demonstrate his claims could not have been raised in a timely manner. 

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

1306 (1988) (holding that petitioner's claim of organic brain damage, 

borderline mental retardation and reliance on assistance of inmate law 

clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for the filing of a 

successive post-conviction petition). 

Finally, appellant fails to overcome the presumption of 

prejudice to the State because he failed to demonstrate a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. See NRS 34.800(1)(b). Therefore, the district court 

did not err in dismissing the petition as procedurally barred. Accordingly, 

J. 
4 

EIBEN 

cc: Hon. Elliott Sattler, II, District Judge 

Mary Lou Wilson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A