Opinion
No. 62685
2013-09-19
RONDALE FLEMMING MATTHEWS A/K/A RONDALE FLEMMING MATHEWS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas W. Herndon, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
Appellant filed his petition on October 18, 2012, more than three years after entry of the judgment of conviction on July 22, 2009. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.
Relying upon Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 918 P.2d 321 (1996), appellant claimed that the procedural time bar did not apply to him because he raised claims concerning the validity of his sentence. Appellant was in error. Procedural bars are mandatory in habeas corpus, and there is no exception based on a claim of sentencing error. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005); see also NRS 34.726. Appellant did not attempt to provide any good cause argument to excuse his delay. Even assuming that appellant's petition could be construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentence was facially illegal or that the district court lacked jurisdiction over him. See Edwards, 112 Nev. at 706, 918 P.2d at 324. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We 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.
--------
______________________, J.
Gibbons
______________________, J.
Douglas
______________________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Rondale Flemming Matthews
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk