Opinion
No. 86541-COA
12-26-2023
Lanayah Kathleen HAPPY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Happy filed her petition more than two years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on August 11, 2020. See Happy v. State, No. 78914, 2020 WL 4035452 (Nev. Jul. 16, 2020) (Order of Affirmance). Thus, Happy's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Happy's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.
In her petition, Happy claimed she had good cause because she "was ill advised as to my next steps by my appointed attorney." Happy failed to support this claim with specific factual allegations that were not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle her to relief. Thus, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Happy's petition as procedurally barred. See Berry v. State , 131 Nev. 957, 967, 363 P.3d 1148, 1154-55 (2015).
On appeal, Happy argues that she has good cause to overcome the procedural bar because she tried to get ahold of counsel but was unable to. She also claims counsel told her that a habeas petition was going to be filed, but it was never filed. Because these claims were not raised below, we decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.