Opinion
No. 73688
03-14-2018
ROGER WILLIAM HULL, Appellant, v. ISIDRO BACA, WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
Roger William Hull appeals from an order of the district court denying his February 28, 2017, postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James E. Wilson, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3). --------
Hull contended that, after a computer program change, the records of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) no longer accurately reflected the number of meritorious and work days' credits Hull had earned. To the extent Hull sought the application of those credits to his minimum and/or maximum sentences, he was not entitled to relief. See NRS 200.366(3); NRS 201.230(2); NRS 209.4465(7)(b); Hunt v. Warden, 111 Nev. 1284, 1285, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (1995). We therefore conclude the district court did not err in denying such relief.
Hull also sought to correct NDOC's records regarding the amount of credits Hull had accumulated. The district court concluded that, because granting relief could not affect the amount of time Hull spent in prison, it was not a challenge to the computation of time served and was thus not cognizable. See NRS 34.720(2); NRS 34.724(2)(c). The Nevada Supreme Court has never taken such a narrow view of what constitutes the computation of time served, and we see no reason to do so. See Williams v. Nevada Dep't of Corr., 133 Nev. ___, ___, 402 P.3d 1260, 1262 (2017) (noting "the language of NRS 34.724(2)(c) as logically referring to credit earned after a petitioner has begun to serve the sentence specified in the judgment of conviction" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Hull is entitled to accurate recordkeeping of the credits he has accumulated, regardless of whether they actually impact the amount of time he serves. See Hunt, 111 Nev. at 1285, 903 P.2d at 827. We therefore conclude the district court erred by denying relief on the ground that the claim was not cognizable.
Finally, the district court summarily concluded Hull was not entitled to relief even if his claims were cognizable. Because the district court's order failed to include specific findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the merits of Hull's claims, see NRS 34.830(1), we are unable to conclude the district court did not err in denying the petition. We therefore remand this matter to the district court to resolve Hull's claims in a manner consistent with NRS 34.830(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Roger William Hull
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Carson City Clerk