Relying in partS on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), McLaughlin argues that ineffective assistance of post- conviction counsel excuses his procedural defects. He claims that post- conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and obtain readily-available information to develop his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense.

Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel would not be good cause in the instant case because the appointment of counsel in the prior post- conviction proceedings was not statutorily or constitutionally required.

Crump u. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 303, 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997); McKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159, 164, 912 P.2d 255, 258 (1996). Moreover, 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), and thus, Martinez does not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Furthermore, McLaughlin fails to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State pursuant to NRS 34.800(2). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing McLaughlin's petition as procedurally barred.

Next, McLaughlin argues that the district court erred in denying ground one of his petition under the law-of-the-case doctrine because there exists new evidence to establish that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense. While the district court found that this claim was barred under the law-of-the- case doctrine, we note that this claim was also procedurally barred, as discussed supra. McLaughlin fails to demonstrate good cause to overcome the procedural bar, and we conclude that the district court reached the right result in dismissing McLaughlin's petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 I 947A Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Hardesty A ct.A ceeeAtn j.

J.

Douglas

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 Although the "Verification" included with the fast track statement pursuant to NRAP 3C(h)(3) indicates that the brief complies with the formatting requirements in NRAP 32(a)(4), see NRAP 3C(h)(1) (requiring fast track filings to comply with the formatting provisions in NRAP 32(a)(4)-(6)), review of the brief indicates that the text is not double-spaced and the brief does not have margins of at least one inch on all four sides as required. We caution appellant's counsel that future failure to comply with this court's rules when briefing appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A (a7eJED