Further, because the State pleaded laches, appellant was required to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. See NRS 34.800(2).

Appellant asserted that he had good cause to excuse the procedural defects because (1) his previous post-conviction counsel were ineffective, (2) he recently located evidence supporting a prior ineffective- assistance claim, and (3) the district court order denying his first petition was void. To establish good cause "a petitioner must show that an impediment external to the defense prevented him or her from complying with the state procedural default rules." See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). Appellant's reasons for the delay in filing his petition do not constitute good cause. See Brown v. McDaniel, 130., Nev. Adv. Op. 60, 331 P.3d 867, 870 (2014). Appellant also failed to overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State and therefore his petition is procedurally barred. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Parraguirre

?Qa.

Douglas

2 Thisappeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(0(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (6 ) 194/A CHERRY, J., concurring: Although I would extend the equitable rule recognized in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), to this case because appellant was convicted of murder and is facing a severe sentence, see Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 60, 331 P.3d 867 (2014) (Cherry, J., dissenting), I concur in the judgment on appeal.

Cherry

cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge Brendan James Nasby Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A eo