prejudice."). Smith has already exercised his right to a direct appeal and

filed three post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. All three

petitions were untimely. Smith also filed a federal petition for a writ of

habeas corpus which was denied in 2003 and the denial was affirmed by

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 before this court's order of

reversal and remand. Finally, contrary to Smith's assertion, direct review

of his conviction concluded when this court affirmed his conviction on the

merits in 1998, well before the three-year delay. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A) (discussing the federal period of limitations); Jimenez v.

Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 119 (2009) (discussing when conclusion of

direct review occurs). Therefore, Smith has not demonstrated that the

delay in filing the amended judgment of conviction caused him to lose his

right to challenge his conviction in federal or state court or prejudiced his

ability to exercise his rights in any other way.

As to Smith's claim that the aiding-and-abetting jury

instruction violated his rights under Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 56

P.3d 868 (2002), and Mitchell v. State, 122 Nev. 1269, 149 P.3d 33 (2006),

this claim was previously resolved in our order of reversal and remand, see

Smith v. State, Docket No. 50122 (January 20, 2009), and is therefore

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

- barred by the doctrine of law of the case, see Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). 1 Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgiunt of conviction AFFIRMED.

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Joel M. Mann, Chtd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

other claims are not properly raised in this appeal. See 1 Smith's NRAP 28(a)(9); NRAP 28(e)(2); NRAP 28(j) ("Briefs that are not in compliance may be disregarded. . . on motion or sua sponte by the court"); see also Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994) (explaining that "claims that are appropriate for a direct appeal must be pursued on direct appeal, or they will be considered waived in subsequent proceedings"), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 150, 979 P.2d 222, 223-24 (1999); Rippo v. State, 122 Nev. 1086, 1095, 146 P.3d 279, 285 (2006) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel are properly raised for the first time in a timely first post-conviction petition.").

SUPREME COURT OF N EVADA

(0) 1947A 3 11.XTeg. . W4=1- 1:4-4X€2 - 1 ;•••••!4,- .;;;-,_