Opinion ID: 2623403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Successive petitions

Text: NRS 34.810(2) requires dismissal of a petition that fails to allege new or different grounds for relief. An exception to dismissal applies only if the district court determines good cause and actual prejudice exist. [7] To show `good cause,' a petitioner must demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising his claims earlier. [8] A petitioner must show that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available ... or that `some interference by officials' made compliance impracticable. [9] Bennett claims that the State's numerous Brady v. Maryland [10] violations, combined with ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, demonstrate good cause for excusing the procedural defects. I disagree with the majority that the State violated Brady. Although the district court may have failed to allow Bennett's first post-conviction counsel proper time to investigate, I do not consider the failure an impediment external to the defense. [11] Bennett's counsel delayed three years before filing a supplemental petition. Despite filing the supplemental petition, Bennett's counsel did not request an investigator until several months later.