Opinion
85225-COA
03-24-2023
CORNELIUS EUGENE ROGERS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Gibbons, C. J.
Cornelius Eugene Rogers appeals from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 12, 2021. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, Judge.
Rogers filed his petition more than 11 years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on June 22, 2010. See Rogers v. State, No. 51514, 2010 WL 3271954 (Nev. May 28, 2010) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Rogers' petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, Rogers' petition was successive because he had previously filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was decided on the merits, and it constituted an abuse of the writ to the extent he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2), Rogers' 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).
See Rogers v. State, No. 66081, 2015 WL 4504028 (Nev. July 21, 2015) (Order of Affirmance).
Rogers claimed the Supreme Court's decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1500 (2018), provides good cause. Rogers filed his petition more than three years after McCoy was decided and therefore did not raise his claims within a reasonable time after they became available. See Rippo v. State, 134 Nev. 411, 422, 423 P.3d 1084, 1097 (2018) (concluding that a claim is raised within a reasonable time when the petition is filed within one year after the factual or legal basis for the claim becomes available). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this good-cause claim.
Rogers claims on appeal that the district court failed to conduct an independent and impartial analysis of his petition and instead relied solely on the State's response. Judges are presumed to be impartial. Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev. 47, 51, 247 P.3d 269, 272 (2011). And the State prepared the written order in accordance with the local rules. See EDCR 1.90(a)(4) ("[T]he prevailing party shall submit a written order to the judge . . . ."); EDCR 7.21 (requiring the prevailing party to provide the court with a draft order or judgment). Therefore, we conclude Rogers is not entitled to relief based on this claim. For the foregoing reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Bulla, J., Westbrook, J.
Hon. Jasmin D. Lilly-Spells, District Judge