Opinion
No. 77959-COA
02-18-2020
Tamas HORVATH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Anthony L. Abbatangelo Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Anthony L. Abbatangelo
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Tamas Horvath appeals from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.
Horvath argues the district court erred by denying his March 4, 2016, petition for a writ of habeas corpus and later-filed supplement. He specifically argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his request to modify his sentence.
Horvath was convicted of invasion of the home while in possession of a deadly weapon, discharging a firearm at or into a structure, attempted invasion of the home, and resisting a public officer with the use of a firearm. Horvath had also been convicted of a federal court offense and was to serve a prison term for that offense. At the sentencing hearing, the parties requested the district court to impose Horvath's state sentence concurrent with his federal sentence. Horvath’s counsel informed the sentencing court that the federal prison may not actually permit Horvath to serve his sentence concurrently with his state sentence. Horvath’s counsel informed the sentencing court that it will depend on whether his federal court attorney is successful in getting Horvath housed in a federal prison. After listening to the arguments of the parties, the sentencing court ordered Horvath to serve an aggregate prison term of 96 to 240 months for these offenses and also ordered Horvath’s state prison sentence to run concurrent with the federal prison sentence.
In his petition, Horvath asserted that he is currently housed in state prison and he is not receiving credit for his federal prison sentence. As a result, Horvath contended he will spend a longer time in prison between both sentences than the state sentencing court intended. For that reason, Horvath requested the district court to reduce his state sentence so that he could begin his federal prison sentence and receive the amount of overall time that he would have served had all of his sentences actually been served concurrently.
The district court denied Horvath’s request upon two bases. First, the district court found Horvath’s request to modify his sentence was not appropriately raised in his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Horvath’s claim was not based on an allegation that his guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that his plea was entered without the effective assistance of counsel and, therefore, his claim was not permissible in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus stemming from a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Second, the district court analyzed Horvath’s claim as if it were raised in a motion to modify sentence, but found he was not entitled to relief. The district court found Horvath was not entitled to a reduction in his sentence because he failed to demonstrate the sentencing court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). The record supports the district court’s findings. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.