Opinion
No. 67513
08-05-2015
DUSTIN ALAN ANDERSON, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant Dustin Anderson's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas Smith, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett u. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
The district court denied Anderson's petition, finding that the petition was not timely filed and Anderson failed to establish good cause for the delay in filing the petition. NRS 34.726(1). We conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition as untimely filed.
A post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges the judgment of conviction must be filed within one year after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal. Id. Anderson filed his petition on November 25, 2014, one year and ten days after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on November 15, 2013. Anderson v. State, Docket No. 62522 (Order of Affirmance, October 17, 2013). Although Anderson delivered his petition to a prison official for filing on November 13, 2014, within the one-year time limit, the prison mailbox rule does not apply to the filing of post-conviction habeas petitions. Gonzales v. State, 118 Nev. 590, 595, 53 P.3d 901, 904 (2002). Further, Anderson's lack of knowledge about the law and his limited legal resources did not constitute good cause to excuse the untimely filing. Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We have reviewed all documents Anderson has submitted in this matter, and we conclude no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent Anderson has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we decline to consider them in the first instance. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Dustin Alan Anderson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk