Cardenas (Joel) Vs. Warden
82364
| Nev. | Nov 10, 2021Background
- Appellant Joel Cardenas filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus seven years after remittitur on his direct appeal, and after previously filing another postconviction petition — making this petition untimely and successive under Nevada law.
- The State pleaded laches and sought dismissal under NRS procedural bars (NRS 34.726, 34.810, 34.800).
- Cardenas argued he showed "good cause" to overcome the bars by relying on McCoy v. Louisiana (claiming his trial counsel conceded guilt), and alternatively by alleging ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel.
- The record showed Cardenas consistently asserted his innocence at trial (testified the sexual encounter was consensual) and trial counsel advanced a strategy attacking the victim's intoxication and memory rather than conceding guilt.
- The district court denied the petition as procedurally barred and found the State had pleaded laches and a presumption of prejudice from the more-than-five-year delay; Cardenas failed to show good cause or overcome the presumption.
- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed: McCoy was distinguishable and did not provide good cause; ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in a noncapital case does not supply good cause; Cardenas failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice from laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition is barred as untimely/successive and requires good cause/actual prejudice | Cardenas sought to excuse the delay by showing good cause (McCoy claim; postconviction counsel ineffective) | State argued petition is untimely and successive; statutory bars apply unless petitioner shows good cause and actual prejudice | Petition was untimely/successive; statutory bars applied; Cardenas failed to show good cause or actual prejudice |
| Whether McCoy v. Louisiana provides good cause because trial counsel conceded guilt | Cardenas: McCoy entitles a petitioner to relief where counsel concedes guilt over the defendant's insistence on innocence | State: Record does not show an actual concession of guilt; counsel pursued trial strategy consistent with Cardenas's testimony | McCoy is distinguishable; record shows no concession of guilt that overrides Cardenas's maintained innocence; McCoy does not provide good cause |
| Whether ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel constitutes good cause | Cardenas: postconviction counsel's ineffectiveness prevented timely presentation of claims | State: In noncapital cases, ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel is not a recognized basis for good cause | Court held Brown v. McDaniel controls: no entitlement to appointed postconviction counsel in noncapital cases, so such ineffectiveness does not establish good cause |
| Whether laches and presumption of prejudice bar the petition | Cardenas: argued laches/presumed prejudice did not bar review | State: pleaded laches; more-than-five-year delay triggers presumption of prejudice under NRS 34.800(2) | Court accepted laches and presumption of prejudice; Cardenas failed to overcome presumption or show a fundamental miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (defendant's right to insist on defense of innocence when counsel concedes guilt)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (counsel's concession strategies evaluated under standards distinct from an unauthorized admission of guilt)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (2021) (limits on retroactive application of new procedural rules)
- Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. 565 (2014) (no entitlement to appointed postconviction counsel in noncapital cases; such counsel's ineffectiveness does not establish good cause)
- Arrnenta-Carpio v. State, 129 Nev. 531 (2013) (conceding guilt can relieve the State of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in context)
- Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248 (2003) (good cause may be shown when factual or legal basis for claim was not reasonably available)
- Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860 (2001) (fundamental miscarriage of justice requires showing actual innocence)
- State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225 (2005) (procedural bars and standards for successive/untimely petitions)