From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Villa-Cardenas v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 24, 2018
No. 75402 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)

Opinion

No. 75402

10-24-2018

ALFREDO VILLA-CARDENAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Alfredo Villa-Cardenas appeals from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on November 17, 2017. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.

This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).

Villa-Cardenas filed his petition more than 19 years after issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal on March 18, 1998. See Villa-Cardenas v. State, Docket No. 28131 (Order Dismissing Appeal, February 27, 1998). Villa-Cardenas' petition was therefore untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). His petition was also abusive as he raised claims new and different from those in his earlier petition. NRS 34.810(2). Villa-Cardenas' petition was therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3).

See Villa-Cardenas v. State, Docket No. 33544 (Order of Affirmance, February 22, 2001).

Villa-Cardenas did not allege good cause in his petition. To the extent he attempts to raise good-cause arguments in his informal brief, we decline to consider his arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999). Finally, Villa-Cardenas did not demonstrate actual innocence because he failed to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of . . . new evidence." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)); see also Mazzan v. Warden, 112 Nev. 838, 842, 921 P.2d 920, 922 (1996). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying Villa-Cardenas' petition as procedurally barred, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint postconviction counsel. See NRS 34.750(1); Renteria-Novoa v. State, 133 Nev. ___, ___, 391 P.3d 760, 760-61 (2017). --------

/s/_________, C.J.

Silver

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Gibbons cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge

Alfredo Villa-Cardenas

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Villa-Cardenas v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 24, 2018
No. 75402 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)
Case details for

Villa-Cardenas v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALFREDO VILLA-CARDENAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 24, 2018

Citations

No. 75402 (Nev. App. Oct. 24, 2018)