Opinion
No. 55782.
09-10-2010
Juventino Pan IAGUA, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Gregory Smith and the State of Nevada, Respondents.
Juventino Paniagua Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney
Juventino Paniagua
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Richard Wagner, 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).
The district court resolved the petitions on the merits. However, our review of the record on appeal reveals that the petitions were procedurally barred. Appellant filed petitions on November 20, 2009 (district court case CR07–5421), and on December 9, 2009 (CR07–5365), almost two years after entry of the judgments of conviction on January 30, 2008. Thus, appellant's petitions were untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's petitions were procedurally barred absent a demonstration of cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id. Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate cause for the delay. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court erroneously reached the merits. State v. Dist. Ct. (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (“Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory.”). Nevertheless, we affirm the decision to deny the petitions because the petitions were procedurally time barred. Kramer v. Kramer, 96 Nev. 759, 762–63, 616 P.2d 395, 397–98 (1980) (holding that a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). Accordingly, we
The petitions were nearly identical, although they involved two separate district court cases. No direct appeal was taken from either judgment of conviction.
Despite his reference to the First Amendment in the title of the petitions, NRS 34.185 was not implicated in the instant case. The procedural rules applicable to a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus applied. NRS 34.720.
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.