Smith (Michael) v. State ( 2014 )

 1989. 2 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. 4 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 provide a good causeS argument. To the
extent that he argued that the procedural bars did not apply because he
was challenging the constitutionality of the laws and the jurisdiction of
the courts, appellant's argument was without merit. Appellant's claims
challenge the validity of the judgment of conviction, and thus, the
procedural bars do apply in this case. 5 See NRS 34.720(1); NRS 34.724(1).
2 No direct appeal was taken.
'Further, the petition was filed more than twenty-one 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)
4Smith v. State, 106 Nev. 781, 802 P.2d 628 (1990).
5 Appellant's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts.
Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 171.010. We note that the Statutes of Nevada
contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution.
The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified,
codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
9)1 1947A 4410:9
Because appellant did not demonstrate good cause, the petition was
procedurally barred. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 6
J.
Hardesty
aksLay J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Michael Lee Smith
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
6We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A