Opinion
No. 71185
04-19-2017
LUIS LEDESMA, Appellant, v. ISIDRO BACA, WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Appellant Luis Ledesma appeals from the postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus he filed on June 20, 2016. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3). --------
First, Ledesma claims the district court erred by dismissing his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his petition, Ledesma claimed the Nevada Department of Corrections was not properly applying the credits he earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465 because it was not deducting the credits from his minimum prison term.
A petitioner is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he has asserted specific factual allegations that are not belied or repelled by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief. Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008).
Ledesma's habeas claim is repelled by the record, which reveals he was convicted of three category B felonies for offenses he committed after 2007. Because these facts were dispositive of his claim and demonstrate he was not entitled to relief, see NRS 209.4465(8)(d), the district court did not err by dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing.
Second, Ledesma claims the district court's process for resolving his petition was fundamentally unfair because it did not place the matter on the calendar for a hearing, directed the State to provide a response, adopted the State's findings of fact verbatim, and did not give him an opportunity to respond to the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Ledesma has not demonstrated the postconviction proceeding was fundamentally unfair as he chose not to oppose the State's motion to dismiss his petition. See NRS 34.750(4). Even assuming he should have had the opportunity to review and respond to the State's proposed findings and conclusions, see Byford v. State, 123 Nev. 67, 69, 156 P.3d 691, 692 (2007), we conclude any error was harmless under the facts of this case, see NRS 178.598.
Having concluded Ledesma is not entitled to relief, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Luis Ledesma
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk