Preview:

Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because appellant was lawfully confined pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction, and appellant's claims relating to parole do not demonstrate unlawful confinement. See NRS 34.360. Moreover, appellant's claims lacked merit. The standards regarding the decision to grant or deny parole apply equally to prisoners seeking an "institutional" parole or a parole to the streets. NRS 213.10885; NRS 213.1099. Appellant provided no factual support for his argument that decisions to grant or deny parole were race-based. NRS 213.131 sets forth the procedure for a parole hearing, including the right to reasonable notice, an opportunity to be present, a representative at the prisoner's expense, an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, and written notice of the decision. NRS 213.131(9), (10). Nevertheless, parole is an act of grace of the State and there is no cause of action when parole has been denied. See NRS 213.10705; Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 28, 768 P.2d 882, 883 (1989). Appellant failed to demonstrate that this process was not followed, and thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying these claims. Next, appellant appeared to challenge the validity of his judgment of conviction. A post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the only means to collaterally challenge the validity of a judgment of conviction and sentence. NRS 34.724(2)(b). Thus, appellant's claims were improperly sought in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360. Finally, appellant appeared to claim that he was entitled to additional work credits. A challenge to the computation of time served must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A
.9 -1

2

NRS 34.724(2)(c). Thus, appellant's claims were improperly sought in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

J. Hardesty

Cherry

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Percy Lavae Bacon Attorney General/Transportation Division/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. We further deny appellant's motion to consolidate appeals.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 We

3

(0) 1947A



Download 61178.pdf

Nevada Law