Opinion
No. 75454-COA
03-20-2019
LESTER EUGENE SELANDER, JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Lester Eugene Selander, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on June 22, 2017. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; James Crockett, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).
Selander contends the district court erred by construing his petition as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then dismissing it. Selander's petition stated he was seeking relief pursuant to NRS 34.360. We will assume, without deciding, that the district court erred by construing Selander's pleading as a postconviction petition. A person "may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of [his] imprisonment or restraint." NRS 34.360. Further, a petition must include "[a]ffidavits, records or other evidence supporting the allegations in the petition" or explain why they were not. NRS 34.370(4). Selander conceded he is being restrained due to an order revoking probation and amended judgment of conviction. Also, Selander provided no evidence to support any of his allegations. For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing Selander's petition. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Having construed Selander's pleading as a postconviction habeas petition, the district court suggested Selander erroneously filed the petition as a separate civil action, concluded it could not transfer the case to another department or court, and dismissed the case. However, a writ of habeas corpus is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. Hill v. Warden, 96 Nev. 38, 40, 604 P.2d 807, 808 (1980). It is the clerk of the court, not the petitioner, who determines how a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed, see NRS 34.730(3), and the district court has inherent authority to order the clerk of the court to correct any filing error, see State, ex rel. Harvey v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 754, 771, 32 P.3d 1263, 1274 (2001) (recognizing a district court has "the ability to assert direct control over the court clerk's office"). We nevertheless affirm the district court's order for the reasons states above. See Wyatt, 86 Nev. at 298, 468 P.2d at 341. --------
/s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge
Lester Eugene Selander, Jr.
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk