IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

CARLOS ALFREDO GURRY, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 68144 

FILED 

FEB 1 0 2016 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a postconviction 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge. 

Appellant filed his petition on January 26, 2015, 21 years after 

remittitur issued from his direct appeal on January 25, 1994. Thus, 

appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's 

petition was also successive because he had previously sought 

postconviction relief, 2and it constituted an abuse of the writ to the extent 

it raised new and different claims. See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's 

petition was therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good 

cause and prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1). Further, because the State 

'This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, 

NRAP 34(0(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review 

and additional briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 

681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975). 

2Gurry v. State, Docket No. 27922 (Order Dismissing Appeal, 

December 20, 1996); Gurry v. State, Docket No. 52185 (Order of 

Affirmance, July 23, 2009); Gurry v. State, Docket No. 64310 (Order of 

Affirmance, March 12, 2014). 

(0) I947A 
pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the presumption of 

prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(1), (2). 

Appellant contends that the district court erred by denying his 

petition because he is actually innocent. See Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 

838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996) (recognizing that procedurally 

defaulted claims may be considered if a petitioner demonstrates he is 

actually innocent). Appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court 

erred by denying his petition because he fails to demonstrate that he is 

actually innocent. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) 

(explaining that a claim of actual innocence must be based on new 

evidence); Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001). 

Appellant also fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by 

rejecting the various motions he filed incident to the petition, see Mazzan 

v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1070, 863 P.2d 1035, 1036 (1993) ("This court may 

look to general civil or criminal rules for guidance only when the statutes 

governing habeas proceedings have not addressed the issue presented."), 

and his motion for the appointment of counsel, see NRS 34.750. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

(-CAA ("12- .J 

Parraguirre Li 

J. 

3We have received the documents submitted by appellant in this 

matter on June 30, 2015, August 17, 2015, and September 22, 2015, and 

conclude that no relief is warranted based upon these submissions. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A TtlY§V. 
CHERRY, J., concurring: 

I concur. 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Carlos Alfredo Gurry 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e