Opinion
No. 57260.
07-13-2011
Spencer Lavern ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Spencer Lavern Anderson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Spencer Lavern Anderson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a “motion for new trial or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus.” Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(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).
In his motion filed on June 16, 2010, appellant claimed he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the jury was improperly instructed, there was insufficient evidence of his guilt, and there were errors in the criminal history presented to the district court. NRS 176.515(4) provides that a motion for a new trial based upon any grounds other than newly discovered evidence “must be made within 7 days after the verdict or finding of guilt or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7–day period.” Appellant's motion was not based on newly discovered evidence and the motion was filed more than 14 years after the jury's verdict. Therefore, district court did not err in denying appellant's motion for new trial.
An amended judgment of conviction was entered on October 15, 1999, which clarified that appellant had been adjudicated as a habitual criminal.
In addition, the district court correctly denied appellant's petition for writ of mandamus. Appellant's claims were challenges to the judgment of conviction and must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. NRS 34.724(2)(b). Appellant had an adequate remedy at law; therefore, he failed to demonstrate that a writ of mandamus should issue. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we
We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34.
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.