Willard v. Baker et al

Filing 5

ORDERED P's # 2 Application to proceed IFP is DENIED. FURTHER ORD P shall SHOW CAUSE by 1/14/2012 why petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. FURTHER ORD P shall provide with his response such competent evidence as is available to him of his date of birth. FURTHER ORD shall file in the record and send to P with this order as an attachment to this order consisting of a copy of the state supreme court's December 10, 2010 order of affirmance in No. 54885. FURTHER ORD that the Co urt defers consideration of any other deficiencies in the papers presented until after assessing the timeliness issue in the first instance. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 12/13/2011. ( Attachments: # 1 NV Supreme Court Order of Affirmance )(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

In the proceedings below, the district court denied appellant's
claim that his trial counsel's failure to file a direct appeal provided good
cause to excuse the delay in filing the petition. On appeal, appellant
provides no arguments concerning the denial of his good-cause claim. "It
is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent
argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court."
Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). As appellant
fails to raise any arguments concerning the denial of his good-cause claim,
we conclude that appellant's petition was properly denied as it is
procedurally barred . 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, J.
Cherry

J.
Saitta
2As

the district court denied appellant's good-cause claim, it should
have denied his underlying claims as procedurally barred. However, the
district court considered and denied the underlying claims on the merits.
We conclude that the district court erred in considering those claims on
the merits, but reached the correct result in denying the petition, and
therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court to deny relief. See
generally Kraemer v. Kraemer, 79 Nev. 287, 291, 382 P.2d 394, 396 (1963)
(noting that a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based
on the wrong reason). Further, to the extent appellant attempts to frame
a jurisdictional claim, appellant failed to demonstrate that the district
court was without jurisdiction. NRS 62B.330(3)(b); NRS 4.370(3).

2

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Kay Ellen Armstrong
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

3
(0) 1947A