at the sentencing hearing. 2 Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause because his claim that trial counsel was ineffective was itself procedurally barred. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003).

Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying appellant's petition, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty ,A frea.4±,

J.

J.

2 We note that appellant's reliance on Martinez is misplaced for two reasons. First, Martinez provides good cause based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for a federal court to consider claims that were procedurally defaulted in state court. This is appellant's first post-conviction petition; therefore, there is no claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. Second, we have 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).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Ralph Fuller Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A .ze/w4