From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emerich v. Neven

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 12, 2014
No. 63911 (Nev. Mar. 12, 2014)

Opinion

No. 63911

03-12-2014

CARL ALVIN EMERICH, Appellant, v. DWIGHT NEVEN, WARDEN, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying in part appellant's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, 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 petition filed on August 17, 2012, appellant claimed that he was entitled to additional days of credit for the time he spent in custody in Arizona, alleging that the only reason he was in custody was because of a hold placed on him by the Nevada Department of Public Safety, Parole and Probation, after appellant absconded. The State conceded that appellant was entitled to an additional 9 days' credit for the time he spent in custody after being released on the Arizona charges and before being booked into the Clark County Detention Center. Appellant further claimed that he was entitled to additional days of credit for the completion of a drug program and for assistance he rendered through the Office of the Inspector General. Based upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to any additional credits. See NRS 209.4465; NRS 209.448; see also Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

We 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.
--------

_______________, J.

Hardesty

_______________, J.

Douglas

____________, J.

Cherry
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge

Carl Alvin Emerich

Attorney General/Carson City

Attorney General/Las Vegas

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Emerich v. Neven

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 12, 2014
No. 63911 (Nev. Mar. 12, 2014)
Case details for

Emerich v. Neven

Case Details

Full title:CARL ALVIN EMERICH, Appellant, v. DWIGHT NEVEN, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 12, 2014

Citations

No. 63911 (Nev. Mar. 12, 2014)