Opinion
No. 81433-COA
08-28-2020
KEISHAWN LASHAWNTAE CRANFORD, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, Keishawn Lashawntae Cranford appears to seek enforcement of a district court order and challenges his presentence credits.
Cranford asserts the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) has not complied with a district court order granting his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of time he has served. A petitioner should seek enforcement of a district court order in the district court before seeking extraordinary relief in this court, Cranford does not assert, nor does he provide evidence, that he has sought enforcement of the district court's order in the district court. Accordingly, we are not satisfied this court's intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted as to this issue at this time. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) ("Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the decision as to whether a petition will be entertained lies within the discretion of this court.").
Cranford's claim regarding presentence credits is a challenge to the validity of his judgment of conviction. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2006). And a challenge to the validity of a judgment of conviction must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724(2)(b); NRS 34.738(1). Because Cranford has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, we conclude this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is not warranted. See NRS 34.170.
We express no opinion as to whether Cranford could meet the procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34.
For the foregoing reasons, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Keishawn Lashawntae Cranford
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk