Opinion
No. 75631-COA
02-13-2019
RICHARD DEEDS, Appellant, v. CONNIE S. BISBEE, CHAIR, NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Richard Deeds appeals from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, or prohibition filed on January 30, 2018. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).
Deeds argues the district court erred by denying his petition for mandamus or prohibition in which he challenged the Board of Parole Commissioners' (Board) decision to deny him parole. Deeds argued his rights to due process and equal protection were violated, NRS 213.10885 constitutes an ex-post facto law, and the Board abused its discretion when it denied him parole.
Deeds' claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Deeds was lawfully confined pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction, and Deeds' claims relating to parole do not demonstrate unlawful confinement. See NRS 34.360. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying habeas relief.
Our review of the record on appeal reveals the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Deeds' petition. See City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003) (reviewing a district court's order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion). Parole is an act of grace; a prisoner has no constitutional right to parole. NRS 213.10705; Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 28, 768 P.2d 882, 883 (1989); see also Severance v. Armstrong, 96 Nev. 836, 839, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (1980) (because a Nevada inmate has no legitimate expectation of parole release he has no "constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke due process"). Further, Deeds failed to demonstrate an equal protection violation. See Glauner v. Miller, 184 F.3d 1053, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359, 371, 998 P.2d 166, 173 (2000). Therefore, Deeds failed to demonstrate he was entitled to relief for his claims. Accordingly, we
On appeal, it appears Deeds claims his parole was improperly denied because the Board used an inapplicable aggravating factor. See Anselmo v. Bisbee, 133 Nev. 317, 323, 396 P.3d 848, 853 (2017). This claim was not raised below in the district court, and we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999).
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, A.C.J.
Douglas /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Richard Deeds
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City Clerk