Opinion
No. 83583-COA
06-23-2022
Jocquise J. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Hill Firm Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Hill Firm
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Coleman argues the district court erred by denying his July 6, 2021, petition as procedurally barred without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Coleman filed his petition more than seven years after entry of the judgment of conviction on November 7, 2013. Thus, Coleman's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Coleman's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must raise claims supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
Coleman did not pursue a direct appeal.
Coleman claimed he had good cause because trial-level counsel did not send him his full case file in a timely manner. However, counsel's failure to send Coleman his full case file did not constitute cause for the delay because it did not prevent Coleman from filing a timely petition. See Hood v. State, 111 Nev. 335, 338, 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by rejecting this good-cause claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Next, Coleman argues the district court erred by failing to include specific findings concerning its decision to deny his request for an evidentiary hearing in its order denying his petition. However, we conclude the district court's order denying the motion contains findings with sufficient specificity to permit this court to appropriately review its decision on appeal. Therefore, we conclude Coleman fails to demonstrate he is entitled to relief based upon this claim. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
The Honorable Jerome T. Tao did not participate in the decision in this matter.