Opinion
No. 61313 No. 61314
04-09-2013
RONALD EUGENE MIDBY A/K/A RONALD E. COURY A/K/A RONALD E. MIDBY, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. RONALD EUGENE MIDBY A/K/A RONALD E. COURY, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
These are proper person appeals from orders of the district court denying a motion for presentence credits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Doug Smith, Judge.
These appeals have been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the records are sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975). We elect to consolidate these appeals for disposition. NRAP 3(b).
Docket No. 61313
In his motion filed on June 4, 2012, appellant sought presentence credit in case C254735. Appellant's claim for presentence credit is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence and such a claim must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and is subject to the procedural time bar set forth in NRS 34.726(1). Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169-70 (2006). Appellant's motion was untimely as it was filed more than two years after entry of the judgment of conviction on January 14, 2010. Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate cause for the delay. Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying the motion in this case.
Docket No. 61314
In his motion filed on June 4, 2012, appellant sought 405 days of presentence credit in case C261607. Appellant's claim for presentence credit should have been filed in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. However, the motion was timely as it was filed within one-year from entry of the judgment of conviction on July 21, 2011, in C261607. NRS 34.726(1). The motion, nevertheless, lacked merit as appellant sought credit for time served in other cases. See NRS 176.055(1). Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court denying the motion in this case. Accordingly, we
Appellant's reliance upon Johnson v. State, 120 Nev. 296, 89 P.3d 669 (2004) is misplaced as Johnson relates to concurrent sentences within a single judgment of conviction and not concurrent sentences between separate judgments of conviction. Id. at 298, 89 P.3d at 670.
--------
ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.
__________, J.
Hardesty
__________, J.
Douglas
__________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
Ronald Eugene Midby
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk