commencement of the one-year deadline, appellant's claim does not 

constitute good cause to excuse an untimely petition. Therefore, the 

district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Next, appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay 

because replacement counsel refused to file a notice of appeal from the 

judgment of conviction. Appellant failed to demonstrate that this claim 

could not have been raised in a timely petition. Hathaway v. State, 119 

Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Appellant did not allege that he 

believed counsel had filed an appeal and only recently learned that 

counsel had not. See id. at 255, 71 P.3d at 508. In fact, he claimed that 

counsel specifically refused to file the appeal. Therefore, the district court 

did not err in denying this claim. 

Next, appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay 

because replacement counsel refused to file a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus and waited more than a year to withdraw as counsel in order to 

prevent appellant from filing a timely petition, as appellant was unable to 

file documents while represented. 2Appellant failed to demonstrate that 

2To the extent that appellant claimed he had cause for the delay 

because of inadequate legal assistance in that an inmate law clerk 

informed appellant he could not file documents while represented, 

appellant failed 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). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ce 
an impediment external to the defense precluded him from raising this 

claim in a timely manner. Id. at 252, 71 P.3d at 506. Further, appellant 

waited more than eighteen months after the end of the one-year time 

period to file a timely petition before filing his petition. Therefore, even 

assuming counsel's alleged refusal to file a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus could be good cause, appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the 

entire length of his delay. 3Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Lastly, appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay 

because replacement counsel did not send appellant his case file until 

seven months after counsel withdrew. Appellant failed to demonstrate 

cause because counsel's alleged failure to provide appellant with his file 

would not have prevented appellant from filing a timely petition. Hood v. 

State, 111 Nev. 335, 338, 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995). Further, appellant 

waited more than six months after the end of the one-year time period for 

filing a timely petition before petitioning the district court for the 

production of documents from his former counsel. Therefore, even 

assuming the lack of a case file could be good cause, appellant failed to 

demonstrate cause for the entire length of his delay, and the district court 

3Even assuming, as appellant claimed and as is addressed infra, 

that the delay in receiving his case file demonstrated good cause for the 

delay, appellant failed to demonstrate cause for the entire length of his 

delay. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947.; .atact, 
did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred. 4Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 5 

tlei4 J. 

Pickering 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Mark Robert Collins 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

declining to appoint counsel for the instant petition. See NRS 34.750(1). 

5We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person 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 4 

(0) 1947A