Opinion
No. 61492
05-14-2013
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James E. Wilson, 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 May 2, 2011, appellant claimed that application of the psych panel requirement constituted an ex post facto violation. 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 and the psych panel did not demonstrate unlawful confinement. See NRS 34.360. Moreover, as a separate and independent ground to deny relief, we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case prevents further litigation of appellant's ex post facto challenge to the psych panel requirement because this court has previously rejected this challenge. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975). Further, any challenge to the decision to deny parole was without merit because 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). Accordingly, we
See Moor v. State, Docket No. 47889 (Order of Affirmance, January 10, 2007); Moor v. Warden, Docket No. 53554 (Order of Affirmance, November 3, 2009).
--------
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
__________, J.
Gibbons
__________, J.
Douglas
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Mark Moor
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk