2009). Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). 

Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously 

litigated 2 post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and it 

constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different 

from those raised in his previous petitions. 2 See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 

34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a 

demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). A petitioner may be entitled to review 

of defaulted claims if failure to review the claims would result in a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice. Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 

921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). In order to demonstrate a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice, a petitioner must make a colorable showing of 

actual innocence of the crime. Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 

P.3d 519, 537 (2001). 

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause to excuse 

his procedural defects. Rather, appellant argued that he was actually 

innocent. 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, 117 Nev. at 887, 34 P.3d at 537; Mazzan, 

112 Nev. at 842, 921 P.2d at 922. We therefore conclude that the district 

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

and we affirm the order of the district court. 

2Hatfield v. Warden, Docket No. 57351 (Order of Affirmance, 

September 15, 2011); Hatfield v. LeGrand, Docket No. 62684 (Order of 

Affirmance, September 16, 2014). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A (e- 
Cksut. 

Cherry 

Docket No. 66489 

In his motion filed on July 30, 2014, appellant claimed that 

the district court was without jurisdiction because he was actually 

innocent of the crime, the charging information was insufficient, the jury 

instructions were inadequate, and he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Appellant's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims 

permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v. 

State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without 

considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

, J. 

Parraguirre 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted to 

the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based 

upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has 

attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not 

previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to 

consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(01 1947A e 
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Gregory Allen Hatfield 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(U) 1947A 0