476 P3D 437 - Camacho (Eduardo) Vs. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

EDUARDO CAMACHO, No. 81029
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
Respondent.
NOV 1 3 2020
A. BROWN
PREME COB
BY
IEF DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a
postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District
Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Simons, Judge. Appellant Eduardo
Camacho argues that the district court erred in denying his petition as
procedurally barred. We affirm.'
Camacho's postconviction habeas petition was untimely
because it was filed 11 years after remittitur issued on direct appeal. See
NRS 34.726(1); Camacho v. State, Docket No. 49150 (Order Affirming in
Part, Vacating in Part, and Remanding, July 14, 2008). Camacho's petition
was also successive because he had previously filed several postconviction
habeas petitions and an abuse of the writ because he asserted claims that
had been raised in a prior petition. See NRS 34.810(2); Camacho v. Warden,
Docket No. 63354 (Order of Affirmance, September 17, 2014); Carnacho v.
Warden, Docket No. 55401 (Order of Affirmance, April 6, 2011). Thus,
Camacho's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good
cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3).

'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude
that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has
been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See
NRAP 34(0(3).
Camacho does not argue that he has good cause to excuse the
procedural bars. Rather, Camacho argues that the procedural bars should
be excused because he is actually innocent. Actual innocence requires
Camacho to show that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror
would have convicted him in the light of . . . new evidence," Schlup v. Delo,

513 U.S. 298, 327

 (1995); see also Pellegrini v. State,

117 Nev. 860, 887

34 P.3d 519, 537

 (2001), and that he is factually innocent, see Bousley v. United
                   States,

523 U.S. 614, 623

 (1998). Camacho did not identify any new
                   evidence but instead disputes the sufficiency of the evidence presented at
                   trial. Cf. Brown v. McDaniel,

130 Nev. 565

, 576,

331 P.3d 867

, 875 (2014)
                   (distinguishing actual innocence and insufficient evidence claims). We
                   therefore conclude that the district court correctly applied the mandatory
                   procedural bars. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker),

121 Nev. 225, 231

112 P.3d 1070

, 1074 (2005).
                               Having considered Camacho's contentions and concluded that
                   they do not warrant relief, we
                               ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



                                                                 !so...717
                                            Parraguirre


                                                                       CiPtf‘49          , J.
                    11— O A
                   Hardesty                                   Cadish




                   cc:   Hon. Lynne K. Simons, District Judge
                         Eduardo Camacho
                         Attorney General/Carson City
                         Washoe County District Attorney
SUPREME COURT
                         Washoe District Court Clerk
      OF
    NEVADA
                                                          2
(0) 1947A 4(0510