G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2006 ·
…appellate courts will not disturb a trial court's discretion in determining the existence of good cause for delay in filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus except for clear cases of abuse.
at p. 1230
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases · 2 courts ·
…gi ood cause for delay exists if the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court: (a) that the delay is not the fault of the petitioner; and (b) chat dismissal of the petition as untimely will unduly prejudice the petitioner.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
First red flag: 2017
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Abrogated
Mulder (Michael) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , 773 P.2d 1229 (1989), abrogated by statute on other 4Mulder claims that the strict one-year timeline outlined in Rippo v. State, 132 Nev., Adv.
discussed
Overruled in part
Morris (Brent) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Overruled in part
Morris (Brent) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Overruled in part
HARRIS (LAMAR) VS. STATE
(2×)
"Generally, good cause means a substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse." Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
HARRIS (LAMAR) VS. STATE
(2×)
"Generally, good cause means a substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse." Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
Harris v. State
(2×)
"Generally, good cause means a substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse." Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
Harris v. State
(2×)
"Generally, good cause means a substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse." Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
Kieren (Dennis) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (holding that pursuit of federal habeas relief did not constitute good cause to excuse an untimely state habeas petition), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 197 -98 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Overruled in part
State v. Cardenas (Esaul)
(2×)
This determination is erroneous, as the pursuit of federal remedies does not constitute cause pursuant to Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 -98 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
Flanagan (Dale) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
The district court denied this claim because the pursuit of federal remedies does not constitute good cause pursuant to Colley ix State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at 197 n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
Atkins (Sterling) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by Huebler, 128 Nev. at n.2, 275 P.3d at 95 n.2.
discussed
Overruled in part
State v. Greene
(2×)
On appeal, we agreed that Greene failed to demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from complying with the procedural default rules, see Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); see also Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), abrogated by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012), however, we also identified a clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
International Game Technology, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Ex Rel. County of Washoe
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
appellate courts will not disturb a trial court's discretion in determining the existence of good cause for delay in filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus except for clear cases of abuse.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tiffany (David) Vs. State
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Villegas (David) v. State
SUPREME COURT OF gr- 3 '1110 NEVADA (0) 1947A default rules); see also Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (rejecting poor inmate law clerk assistance as good cause); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (determining that pursuit of a federal habeas petition did not provide good cause).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dreyfuss (Philip) v. State
Cf. Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (holding that choosing to pursue federal habeas relief first is not good cause for a delay in pursuing state postconviction relief).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Otero (Carlos) v. State
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lions (Linkston) v. State
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 (0) I947A 236, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Huebler
(2×)
Const, art. 6, § 19; SCR 10. [2] We recognize that Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), states that a district court's determination regarding the existence of good cause will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion; however, under the current statutory scheme the time bar in NRS 34.726 is mandatory, not discretionary.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hathaway v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
If Hathaway demonstrates good cause based on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he will have necessarily established undue prejudice to excuse the procedural time-bar. 18 CONCLUSION We reverse the district court’s order in its entirety and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Hathaway can demonstrate good cause to excuse the delay in filing his petition. 19 1 114 Nev. 956 , 964 P.2d 785 (1998). 2 231 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (quoting State v. Estencion, 625 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Haw. 1981)). 4…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Allan MORAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Birges v. State, 107 Nev. 809 , 820 P.2d 764, 765-66 (1991); Glauner v. State, 107 Nev. 482 , 813 P.2d 1001, 1003 (1991); Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Merritt (William) Vs. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (concluding that the exhaustion of state remedies in order to seek federal court review is insufficient to demonstrate good cause), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hill (James) Vs. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 235 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192 , 197 n.2, 275 P.3d 91 , 95 n.2 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
Powell (Kitrich) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , 773 P.2d 1229 (1989), superceded by statute as stated in State 1).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hernandez (Fernando) v. McDaniel (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Taylor (Omar) v. State
(4×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mortensen (Ronald) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989); see also Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 452-53 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aytch (Martinez) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989); see also Edwards, 529 U.S. at 452-53 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Castillo (William) v. State (Death Penalty-Pc)
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armstead (Joe) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fields (Matthew) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chavez (Jafet) v. State
(2×)
See Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown (Kasard) v. State
(2×)
Op. 60, 331 P.3d 867 , 870 (2014) (holding that Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , (2012) does not apply to Nevada postconviction procedures); see also Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (holding that the pursuit of federal remedies does not constitute good cause).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carey (Gordon) v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maki (Charles) v. State
(2×)
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); see also Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hanson (Mark) v. Warden
(2×)
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); see also Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Escobar (Carlos) v. State
(2×)
See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003); see also Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235, 236 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Juan X. High v. John Ignacio
(2×)
See, e.g., Colley v. State, 105 Nev. 235 , 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1989) (per curiam); Jones v. State, 91 Nev. 416 , 536 P.2d 1025, 1025-26 (1975) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
High v. Ignacio
See, e.g., Colley v. State, 773 P.2d 1229, 1230 (Nev. 1989) (per curiam); Jones v. State, 536 P.2d 1025, 1025-26 (Nev. 1975) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pellegrini v. State
(2×)
Co. v. Lyon County, 6 Nev. 68, 73 (1870)). 45 Camino Et Al. v. Lewis, 52 Nev. 202, 210 , 284 P. 766, 768 (1930) (Coleman, J., concurring) (quoting Crane & Co. v. Gloster, 13 Nev. 279, 281 (1878)). 46 Speer, 116 Nev. at 679, 5 P.3d at 1064 . 47 Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 , 286 n.23 (1983)). 48 Cf. id. at 375 (adopting similar construction of one-year filing limitation for habeas petitions under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act). 49 iSee Dickerson, 114 Nev. at 1087-88 , 967 P.2d at 1134 ; see also Coll…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MICHAEL E. COLLEY, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
18906.
Nevada Supreme Court.
May 19, 1989.
Herman G. Herbig, Carson City, for Appellant., Brian McKay, Attorney General, Noel S. Waters, District Attorney, and Keith Loomis, Deputy District Attorney, Carson City, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 43 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Nevada Supreme Court (2)
OPINION
Per Curiam:This court affirmed Michael Colley’s convictions for attempted murder and battery with intent to commit sexual assault in January 1982. Subsequently, Colley filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the federal district court, which rejected his claim. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 1986.
After Colley filed a petition for post-conviction relief in September 1987, the district court dismissed the petition as untimely. Colley argues that his pursuit of habeas corpus relief in the federal courts constituted good cause for his failure to file his petition for post-conviction relief within the one year statutory deadline. Colley’s contention lacks merit.
Colley filed his petition for post-conviction relief over five[*236] years after this court affirmed his conviction. According to NRS 177.315(3), a person seeking post-conviction relief must file his petition within one year after the resolution of his appeal, unless there is good cause shown for a delay. In this appeal, Colley argues that he had good cause for failing to meet the one year filing deadline imposed by NRS 177.315(3). He contends that because he was pursuing his federal habeas corpus remedy between 1982 and 1986, he appropriately refrained from filing a petition for post-conviction relief in state court during that time. We disagree.
Generally, “good cause” means a “substantial reason; one that affords a legal excuse.” State v. Estencion, 625 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Haw. 1981). Appellate courts will not disturb a trial court’s discretion in determining the existence of good cause except for clear cases of abuse. Id.
At some point, we must give finality to criminal cases. Darnell v. State, 98 Nev. 518, 521, 654 P.2d 1009, 1011 (1982). Should we allow Colley’s post-conviction relief proceeding to go forward, we would encourage offenders to file groundless petitions for federal habeas corpus relief, secure in the knowledge that a petition for post-conviction relief remained indefinitely available to them. This situation would prejudice both the accused and the State since the interest of both the petitioner and the government are best served if post-conviction claims are raised while the evidence is still fresh. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 9, Advisory Committee Note (1976).
Thus, in the instant case, the necessity for the orderly administration of justice required the district court to deny Colley’s untimely petition for post-conviction relief. See Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 539 (1976) (holding that in some circumstances, considerations of comity and concerns for the orderly administration of criminal justice require a federal court to forego the exercise of its habeas corpus power). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Colley’s petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision.