impediment external defense in Nevada

2022NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). "[T]o demonstrate good cause, a petitioner must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented hirn or her from complying with the state procedural default rules." Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).

2022NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). "[T]o demonstrate good cause, a petitioner must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented hirn or her from complying with the state procedural default rules." Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).

2020See Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 621 , 81 P.3d 521, 525 (2003) rTo establish good cause, appellants must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented their compliance with the applicable procedural rules . . . [such as] where the factual or legal basis for 3Notab1y, the focus in our prior decision was on concerns that an interpreter may have misrepresented witness testimony that was integral to the penalty hearing and the three-judge panel's decision to impose a death sentence.

2020See Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 621 , 81 P.3d 521, 525 (2003) rTo establish good cause, appellants must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented their compliance with the applicable procedural rules . . . [such as] where the factual or legal basis for 3Notab1y, the focus in our prior decision was on concerns that an interpreter may have misrepresented witness testimony that was integral to the penalty hearing and the three-judge panel's decision to impose a death sentence.

2018See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must be an impediment external to the defense that prevented a petitioner from complying with the state procedural default rules); see also Hood v. State, 111 Nev. 335, 338 , 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995) (determining that counsel's failure to send petitioner his case files did not prevent the filing of a timely petition); Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (determining that a petitioner's limited intelligence did not provide good cause).

2018See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must be an impediment external to the defense that prevented a petitioner from complying with the state procedural default rules); see also Hood v. State, 111 Nev. 335, 338 , 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995) (determining that counsel's failure to send petitioner his case files did not prevent the filing of a timely petition); Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (determining that a petitioner's limited intelligence did not provide good cause).

2020State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 198 , 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) ("[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense."); see also Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004) C"[C]ause and prejudice in this case 'parallel two of the three components of the alleged Brady violation itself."' (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999))).

2020State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 198 , 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) ("[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense."); see also Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004) C"[C]ause and prejudice in this case 'parallel two of the three components of the alleged Brady violation itself."' (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999))).

2012Under the first requirement, "a petitioner must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented him or her from complying with the state procedural default rules." Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (citing Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 353 , 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994)).

2012Under the first requirement, "a petitioner must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented him or her from complying with the state procedural default rules." Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (citing Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 353 , 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994)).

2016Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231-32 , 112 P.3d 1070 , 1074-75 (2005); State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 180 , 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003), and that good cause to overcome a procedural bar must afford a legal excuse and must be an impediment external to the defense, see Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 .

2016Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231-32 , 112 P.3d 1070 , 1074-75 (2005); State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 180 , 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003), and that good cause to overcome a procedural bar must afford a legal excuse and must be an impediment external to the defense, see Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 .

2016Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231-32 , 112 P.3d 1070 , 1074-75 (2005); State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 180 , 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003), and that good cause to overcome a procedural bar must afford a legal excuse and must be an impediment external to the defense, see Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 .

2015Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that mental deficiency and lack of legal knowledge do not constitute good cause), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Haberstroh, 119 Nev. 173, 180-81 , 69 P.3d 676, 681 (2003); Riker, 121 Nev. at 236, 112 P.3d at 1077 (holding that this court does not arbitrarily "ignore H procedural default rules" and that "any prior inconsistent application of statutory default rules would not provide a basis for this court to ignore the rules, which are mandatory").

2020And attorney error that does not rise the level of ineffective assistance of counsel is not an impediment external to the defense because the attorney is acting as the agent of the petitioner and the petitioner bears the risk of attorney error.4 See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997).

2020And attorney error that does not rise the level of ineffective assistance of counsel is not an impediment external to the defense because the attorney is acting as the agent of the petitioner and the petitioner bears the risk of attorney error.4 See Crump v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 304 , 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997).

2019SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A , 41.7W Court announced its decision in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1260-61 (2016) (holding that the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which determined that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 was void for vagueness, was retroactive). 2 See Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 621 , 81 P.3d 521, 525 (2003) ("To establish good cause, appellants must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented their compliance with the applicable procedural rules . . . [such as] where the factual or legal ba

2019SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A , 41.7W Court announced its decision in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1260-61 (2016) (holding that the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which determined that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 was void for vagueness, was retroactive). 2 See Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 621 , 81 P.3d 521, 525 (2003) ("To establish good cause, appellants must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented their compliance with the applicable procedural rules . . . [such as] where the factual or legal ba

2015See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1286-87 , 1289 198 P.3d 839, 849-50, 851 (2008) (disagreeing with Polk and holding that the premeditation instruction set forth in Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 236-37, 994 P.2d 700, 714-15 (2000), did not apply to cases that were final when Byford was decided); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 (holding that a petitioner must show an impediment external to the defense to overcome procedural bars); cf. Phelps v. Dir., Nev.

2015See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1286-87, 1289, 198 P.3d 839, 849-50, 851 (2008) (disagreeing with Polk and holding that the premeditation instruction set forth in Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215, 236-37, 994 P.2d 700, 714-15 (2000), did not apply to cases that were final when Byford was decided); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252, 71 P.3d at 506 (holding that a petitioner must show an impediment external to the defense to overcome procedural bars); cf. Phelps v. Dir., Nev.

2015See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1286-87 , 1289 198 P.3d 839, 849-50, 851 (2008) (disagreeing with Polk and holding that the premeditation instruction set forth in Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 236-37, 994 P.2d 700, 714-15 (2000), did not apply to cases that were final when Byford was decided); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 (holding that a petitioner must show an impediment external to the defense to overcome procedural bars); cf. Phelps v. Dir., Nev.

2015See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1286-87 , 1289 198 P.3d 839, 849-50, 851 (2008) (disagreeing with Polk and holding that the premeditation instruction set forth in Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 236-37, 994 P.2d 700, 714-15 (2000), did not apply to cases that were final when Byford was decided); Hathaway, 119 Nev. at 252 , 71 P.3d at 506 (holding that a petitioner must show an impediment external to the defense to overcome procedural bars); cf. Phelps v. Dir., Nev.

2013On 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.

2013On 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.

2021"To establish prejudice, a petitioner must show not merely that the errors at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage . . . ." State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 756 , 138 P.3d 453, 456 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021"To establish prejudice, a petitioner must show not merely that the errors at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage . . . ." State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 756 , 138 P.3d 453, 456 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 198 , 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) ("[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense."); see also Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004) C"[C]ause and prejudice in this case 'parallel two of the three components of the alleged Brady violation itself."' (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999))).

2020State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. 192, 198 , 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012) ("[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense."); see also Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004) C"[C]ause and prejudice in this case 'parallel two of the three components of the alleged Brady violation itself."' (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 282 (1999))).

2020To overcome the presumption of prejudice when the State has pleaded laches, a petitioner must demonstrate that he could not have 2Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, this "court may revisit a prior ruling when (1) subsequent proceedings produce substantially new or different evidence, (2) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice if enforced." Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). 3 discovered the Brady evidence "by the exercise of r

2020To overcome the presumption of prejudice when the State has pleaded laches, a petitioner must demonstrate that he could not have 2Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, this "court may revisit a prior ruling when (1) subsequent proceedings produce substantially new or different evidence, (2) there has been an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice if enforced." Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 630 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). 3 discovered the Brady evidence "by the exercise of r

2018See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must be an impediment external to the defense that prevented a petitioner from complying with the state procedural default rules); see also Hood v. State, 111 Nev. 335, 338 , 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995) (determining that counsel's failure to send petitioner his case files did not prevent the filing of a timely petition); Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (determining that a petitioner's limited intelligence did not provide good cause).

2018See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252 , 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (recognizing that good cause must be an impediment external to the defense that prevented a petitioner from complying with the state procedural default rules); see also Hood v. State, 111 Nev. 335, 338 , 890 P.2d 797, 798 (1995) (determining that counsel's failure to send petitioner his case files did not prevent the filing of a timely petition); Phelps v. Director, Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660 , 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (determining that a petitioner's limited intelligence did not provide good cause).

2014State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. „ 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012), cert. denied, U.S. 133 S. Ct. 988 (2013). "[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense, and establishing that the evidence was material generally demonstrates that the petitioner would be unduly prejudiced if the petition is dismissed as untimely." Id. (footnote omitted) (citing State v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 589, 599 , 81 P.3d 1, 8 (2003)).

2014State v. Huebler, 128 Nev. „ 275 P.3d 91, 95 (2012), cert. denied, U.S. 133 S. Ct. 988 (2013). "[E]stablishing that the State withheld the evidence demonstrates that the delay was caused by an impediment external to the defense, and establishing that the evidence was material generally demonstrates that the petitioner would be unduly prejudiced if the petition is dismissed as untimely." Id. (footnote omitted) (citing State v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 589, 599 , 81 P.3d 1, 8 (2003)).

2012"An impediment external to the defense may be demonstrated by a showing `that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, or that some interference by officials, made compliance impracticable.'" Id. (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 , 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (citations and quotations omitted)).

2012"An impediment external to the defense may be demonstrated by a showing `that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, or that some interference by officials, made compliance impracticable.'" Id. (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 , 106 S.Ct. 2639 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (citations and quotations omitted)).

1997Passanisi v. Director, Dep’t Prisons, 105 Nev. 63, 66 , 769 P.2d 72, 74 (1989).

1997Passanisi v. Director, Dep’t Prisons, 105 Nev. 63, 66 , 769 P.2d 72, 74 (1989).