Opinion
88019-COA
10-31-2024
AMIR GIBSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Amir Gibson Attorney General/Car son City Clark County District Attorney
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Amir Gibson Attorney General/Car son City Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRAMANCE
Amir Gibson appeals from a district court .order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed on September 8, 2023.. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Erika D. Ballou, judge.
Gibs6h alternatively sought a writ of prohibition but does not provide cogent argument regarding that relief. Additionally, the district, court's January 2, 2024, order also denied a separate motion seeking mandamus relief filed on November 19> 2023, and: Gibson does not provide Cogeiit argument regarding: the denial of that motion. Therefore, we. heed not consider those claims for relief. See Maresca v.. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673;
In his petition, Gibson contended that the method for determining the credit that should be. applied toward an offender's sentence had been, revised by Senate Bill (S,By)t; 413; and that these revisions should apply to him. The district court denied the petition, because (1) S.B; 413, which was passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2023, does not become; effective' for calculation purposes until July 1, 2025; and (2) Gibson had a, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the' ordinary course of law through a post conviction habeas petition. On appeal, Gibson contends that a. petition for, a writ of mandamus was the proper vehicle to pursue his claim
because he sought an: order compelling the government to apply his newly elected computation method, Gibson also argues the district court erred by denying his petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires: as a duty resulting from, an office; trust; or-station; NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen, Improvement Dist v. Newman; 97 Nev, 601,. 603-04, 637 P.2d. 534; 536 (1981) A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain', speedy, -and, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, NKS; 34,170.
A postconviction petition, for a writ of habeas corpus "[i]s the: only remedy available to an incarcerated person 'to. challenge the computation of time that the person has served pursuant to a judgment of conviction, after ail available administrative iremedies: have beetle exhausted." NRS 3:4.724(2)(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, Qipsqn has a plain,: speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law tp challenge; the computation of his credits by way of a postconviction habeas-petition. Although Gibson argues that he challenged the computation method, rather than the computation number and thus that he appropriately sought mandamus relief, we conclude his claim falls within the; scope of;a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the; computation of time. See Williams v. Nev, Dep't of Gprr., 133 Nev. 594, 596, 402 P.3d. 3:260;; 1262 (2010 (recognizing a; claim that statutory: credits are; hot being .properly applied to an inmate's sentence is a challenge to the: computation of time served that is properly raised in a postconviction habeas petition). Because Gibson has-an adequate remedy available, he failed to demonstrate that mandamus relief was warranted, and the district court did not err in denying his petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, Further, Gibson's claim for credits relies on a revised method that has not yet gone into effect. See 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 394, § II, at '2318 (providing that, "for the purpose of adopting, any regulations and performing: any other, preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry put the provisions of this act," S.B. 413 became effective upon passage and approval but that, "for all other purposes," S.B, 413 becomes effective on July 1, 2025)'. Therefore, he failed to demonstrate that mandamus relief was warranted to compel a public officer to perform an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from ail office or that the district court manifestly abused its discretion ifi denying, his requested relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons. C. J. Bulla Westbrook
Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge