Opinion
No. 80149-COA No. 80187-COA
01-24-2020
DEVELLE RURAL MERRITTE, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONS
Docket No. 80149 is an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Docket No. 80187 is an original petition for a writ of mandamus. In both petitions, Develle Rural Merritte asserts the district court lost jurisdiction over his case after the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order of dismissal in Docket No. 66160 and therefore, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducing further proceedings in his dismissed case. He further asserts that, because the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order of dismissal, his judgment is void and he is being imprisoned without authority of any judgment. Merritte seeks an order directing the clerk of the court to execute judgment in compliance with the Nevada Supreme Court order and he asks this court to discharge him.
We conclude this court's intervention by way of extraordinary writ is not warranted for two reasons. First, Merritte's claim is a challenge to the validity of his judgment of conviction that should be raised either on direct appeal or in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance, see NRS 34.724(2)(b). See NRS 34.170 (providing a writ of mandamus should only issue where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Second, Merritte's claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction as a result of the Nevada Supreme Court order lacks merit. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Merritte's appeal in Docket No. 66160 for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to designate an appealable order. See Merritte v. State, Docket No. 66160 (Order Dismissing Appeal, August 20, 2014). The Nevada Supreme Court's order only addressed jurisdiction over the appeal; it did not conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Merritte or order the district court to dismiss the proceedings against Merritte. Accordingly, we
We express no opinion as to the timeliness of any such direct appeal, see NRAP 4(b)(1), or whether Merritte could meet the procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34. --------
ORDER the petitions DENIED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Develle Rural Merritte
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk