From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 9, 2013
No. 61371 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)

Opinion

No. 61371

04-09-2013

ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Appellant, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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

This is a proper person appeal from orders denying motions for presentence credits. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; J. Charles Thompson, Senior 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 motions filed on May 9, 2012, and June 6, 2012, appellant sought an additional 432 days of presentence credit for time spent on house arrest.

Preliminarily, we note that appellant sought presentence credits in the wrong vehicle. A claim for additional presentence credits is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence that must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in NRS chapter 34. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2006). Even assuming that appellant's use of the wrong vehicle could be overlooked, appellant's claim for additional presentence credits lacked merit as time spent on house arrest is not actual confinement under NRS 176.055(1) for purposes of awarding presentence credits. See State v. Dist. Ct. (Jackson), 121 Nev. 413, 418-19, 116 P.3d 834, 837 (2005). Appellant failed to provide any other specific facts in support of his request for additional presentence credits. 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.

Parraguirre

________________________, J.

Cherry
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge

Anthony K. Anderson

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Anderson v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 9, 2013
No. 61371 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)
Case details for

Anderson v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Apr 9, 2013

Citations

No. 61371 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)

Citing Cases

Anderson v. State

However, the Nevada Supreme Court has already reviewed and rejected this claim. Anderson v. State, Docket No.…