Opinion
No. 63708 No. 63710
02-13-2014
PAUL THOMAS MCCREARY, Appellant, v. RENEE BAKER, WARDEN, Respondent. PAUL THOMAS MCCREARY, Appellant, v. RENEE BAKER, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
These are proper person appeals from orders of the district court dismissing two post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County; Gary Fairman, Judge. We elect to consolidate these cases for disposition. NRAP 3(b). Docket No. 63708
These appeals have been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
In his petition filed on January 15, 2013, appellant challenged the denial of parole, claiming that the parole board failed to investigate the transcripts of his case, that his conditions of confinement are affecting his parole score, and that he has been scored a low risk to re-offend under his sex offender risk evaluation but the parole board rates him as a high risk. Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because appellant was lawfully confined pursuant to a valid judgment of conviction, and appellant's claims relating to parole do not demonstrate unlawful confinement. See NRS 34.360. Furthermore, any challenge to the decision to deny parole was without merit because parole is an act of grace of the State and there is no cause of action when parole has been denied. See NRS 213.10705; Niergarth v. State, 105 Nev. 26, 28, 768 P.2d 882, 883 (1989). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this petition.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking appellant's first and second notices of submission.
--------
Docket No. 63710
In his petition filed on February 21, 2013, appellant challenged the State's motion to dismiss his petition at issue in Docket No. 63708. Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because appellant was not challenging his judgment of conviction or the computation of time served. NRS 34.724(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this petition, and we
ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.
_______________, J.
Pickering
_______________, J.
Parraguirre
_______________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge
Paul Thomas McCreary
Attorney General/Ely
White Pine County Clerk