Howard (Samuel) Vs. State (Death Penalty-Pc)

THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

No. 73223 SAMUEL HOWARD, Appellant, FILED vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, SEP 2 0 2019 BROWN Respondent. REME COURT BY ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE EPUTY CLERK

trict court order denying a This is an appeal from a dis trict nvi ction pet itio n for a wr it of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial Dis postco lani, Judge. Court, Clark County; Michael Vil tober 5, 2016, more than thirty Appellant filed his petition on Oc viction. appeal from the judgment of con years after the remittitur issued on n was , 729 P.2d 1341 (1986). The petitio See Howard v. State, 102 Nev. 572 r, appellant therefore untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Moreove

tha t he pre vio usl y sou ght pos tconviction relief. The petition acknowledges y ore suc ces siv e to the ext ent it raised claims that were previousl was theref the and res olv ed on the ir me rits , and it constituted an abuse of litigated lier. the ext ent it raised new cla im s that could have been raised ear writ to barred , the petition was procedurally See NRS 34.810(2). Accordingly 34.726(1); cause and actual prejudice, NRS absent a demonstration of good used to t the procedural bars should be exc NRS 34.810(3), or a showing tha 117 Nev. ge of justice, Pellegrini v. State, prevent a fundamental miscarria . 860, 887, 34 P.3d 519, 537 (2001)

, ns in this case, filed by both parties 'There are multiple pending motio and/or tin g tha t thi s cou rt str ike do cuments filed by the other party reques on those uk e the oth er pa rty 's att orn ey. We decline to take action reb t using this tio ns. We do , ho we ver , rem ind counsel for both parties tha mo is highly al and/or professional grievances court as a forum for airing person ure may l that similar conduct in the fut inappropriate. We caution counse ns. result in the imposition of sanctio 1 q. 39317

d monstrated good cause an Appellant argues that he de bec aus e Hurst v. Florida, the pro ced ura l bar s prejudice sufficient to excuse the ea for th a ne w retroactive rule that prohibits 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), ces when an and mitigating circumstan reweighing of aggravating We disagree. rav ati ng cir cum sta nce is stricken by a reviewing court. agg ting te, 135 Ne v., Ad v. Op . 16, 442 P.3d 558 (2019) (rejec See Castillo v. Sta appellate um en t tha t Hu rst an nounced new law regarding the arg reweighing). its t the district court abused Appellant also argues tha an den yin g his mo tio n for lea ve to amend his petition to add discretion by te v. nal cla im bas ed on Hu rst . We disagree. See NRS 34.750(5); Sta add itio ng that d 453, 458 (2006) (recognizi Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 758, 138 P.3 plemental tric t co urt s are ve ste d wi th broad discretion regarding sup dis ncedes the ing s in po stc on vic tio n cas es). We note that appellant co ple ad we have his interpretation of Hurst, which merits of this claim are tied to rejected. is warranted, we Having concluded that no relief D. ORDER the j t of the district court AFFIRME

, C.J. Gibbons

Hardesty Pickering

L t)c J. /etiipf-,0 , J. Stiglich Parraguirre

,J Silver SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1447A AC*,

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Federal Defender Services of Idaho Gentile, Cristalli, Miller, Armeni & Savarese, PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) IN'A ,4e4r,