Opinion
No. 66313
01-21-2015
ROBERT J. STOLTZ, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Brent T. Adams, 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 March 17, 2014, almost 19 years after entry of the judgment of conviction on May 22, 1985. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive because he had previously filed several post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. 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).
No direct appeal was taken.
In addition, we note that the petition was untimely from the January 1, 1993, effective date of NRS 34.726. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 44, § 33, at 92; Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 874-75, 34 P.3d 519, 529 (2001).
Stoltz v. State, Docket No. 30957 (Order Dismissing Appeal, November 30, 1998); Stoltz v. State, Docket No. 27916 (Order Dismissing Appeal, July 21, 1998).
Appellant claimed that he had good cause because he recently discovered information leading him to believe that his guilty plea agreement was violated by the denial of his request for a commutation of his sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause because this claim was reasonably available to be raised at an earlier time and appellant raised similar claims in his 1997 petition. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
The district court denied one of the claims raised below on its merits, but as discussed previously, should have denied the entire petition as procedurally barred. However, we affirm because the district court reached the right result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970). We also conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for the appointment of counsel.
--------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Robert J. Stoltz
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk