Bennett, relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), argues that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel excused his procedural defects. 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 v. Warden, 113 Nev. 293, 303, 934 P.2d 247, 253 (1997); McKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159, 164, 912 P.2d 255, 258 (1996). 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), and thus, Martinez does not provide good cause for this late and successive petition. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

Hardesty

Douglas irte J.

J.

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A