Gallimort (Jose) v. State ( 2013 )

 was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual
prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); 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 sole good-cause argument was a mere reference to
his "statement of cause and prejudice" submitted with an earlier post-
conviction habeas petition. In affirming the denial of each of appellant's
prior petitions, see Gallimort v. State, Docket Nos. 33289 & 36826 (Order
of Affirmance, August 7, 2001); Gallimort v. State, Docket No. 49438
(October 11, 2007), this court necessarily rejected any good-cause
arguments therein such that appellant's instant good-cause claim is
barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev.
314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). Moreover, appellant failed to
overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State pursuant to NRS
34.800(2). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
denying the petition as procedurally barred, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
J.
arraguirre
J.
Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Jose A. Gallimort
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3