De La Hoya (Jorge) v. State ( 2014 )

 claims were not properly raised in a petition for a writ of coram nob is
because they were claims arising from alleged factual errors that are on
the record, or they involved legal and not factual errors. See id. at ,
310 P.3d at 601-02. Moreover, appellant has previously litigated several
post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and appellant failed to
demonstrate that he could not have raised his current claims in those
petitions.' See id. (explaining that it is the petitioner's burden to
demonstrate that he could not have reasonably raised his claims at an
earlier time). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the
petition.
To the extent the district court construed the petition as a
post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court
correctly concluded that the petition was procedurally barred. Appellant's
petition was filed more than 12 years after entry of the judgment of
conviction on July 10, 2001. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely
filed. 3 See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's petition was successive
because he had previously filed three post-conviction petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus, and it constituted an abuse of the writ to the extent he
raised claims new and different from those raised in previous petitions.
See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a
2De La Hoya v. State, Docket No. 64352 (Order of Affirmance, April
10, 2014); De La Hoya v. Warden, Docket No. 62811 (Order of Affirmance,
October 16, 2013). Appellant also filed a post-conviction petition for a writ
of habeas corpus in the district court on February 4, 2008, but appellant
did not appeal the district court's denial of that petition.
3 No direct appeal was taken.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1907A e0
demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1);
NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches,
appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of
prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). Appellant's claims were reasonably available to
be raised in his earlier post-conviction petitions. 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.
PiekoAtii J.
Picke:-HH:
Parraguirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Jorge De La Hoya
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A