Opinion
No. 58826.
12-07-2011
Brian KAMEDULA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Brian Kamedula Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Brian Kamedula
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus . Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, 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).
Appellant filed his petition on May 5, 2011, almost 24 years after entry of the judgment of conviction on August 4, 1987. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1) ; NRS 34.810(3). Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause for the procedural defects. Accordingly, we
Even assuming that the deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition commenced on January 1, 1993, the date of the amendments to NRS chapter 34, appellant's petition was filed more than 18 years after the effective date of NRS 34.726. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 44, §§ 5, 33, at 75–76, 92; Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 874–75, 34 P.3d 519, 529 (2001).
Kamedula v. State, Docket No. 54478 (Order of Affirmance, March 10, 2010).
Contrary to appellant's assertion, a claim seeking additional presentence credits is subject to the procedural bars. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169–70 (2006).
--------
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.