good cause and actual prejudice. See MRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3).

Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of prejudice. MRS 34.800(2).

Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 34.750(1), and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or provide an explanation for why he could not raise this claim earlier. Further, this court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint post- conviction counsel and the decision in Martinez would not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this petition as procedurally barred, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ 1..toewte, J.

Hardesty

J.

J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge Joe Piceno Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e