asserted he was entitled to mandamus relief or, in the alternative, relief
through a writ of coram nobis.
First, appellant improperly challenged the validity of a
judgment of conviction through a petition for a writ of mandamus. See
NRS 34.160; NRS 34.724(2) (stating that a post-conviction petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle with which to challenge a
judgment of conviction); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman,
97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (discussing the scope of
mandamus). In addition, appellant failed to demonstrate he did not have
an adequate remedy with which to challenge his conviction. See NRS
34.170. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition.
Second, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to
relief on his petition for a writ of coram nobis. Appellant's claims were not
properly raised in a petition for a writ of coram nob is because they were
claims arising from alleged factual errors that are on the record, the
claims could have been raised earlier, or they involved legal and not
factual errors. See Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. „ 310 P.3d 594, 601-
02 (2013). Appellant has previously litigated a post-conviction petition for
a writ of habeas corpus, O'Keefe v. State, Docket No. 48867 (Order of
Affirmance, October 31, 2007), and appellant failed to demonstrate that he
could not have raised his current claims in that petition. See Trujillo, 129
Nev. at , 310 P.3d at 601-02 (discussing that it is the petitioner's
burden to demonstrate that he could not have reasonably raised his claims
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 901099
at an earlier time). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the
petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Pickering
nOLAA
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Brian Kerry O'Keefe
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e