arguments regarding his criminal history when it sentenced appellant.
Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that his sentence should be
modified due to his medical problems and so that he can earn money to
pay restitution to the victims. Appellant also claimed that the State
misinformed the district court regarding appellant's military record and
about the instant offense. In addition, appellant asserted that he was
entitled to additional presentence credits. These claims fell outside the
narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See id.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
motion.
Motion to allow credit for jail time served
In appellant's motion filed on November 8, 2013, appellant
first claimed that he was entitled to additional credit for time spent in a
Florida state prison. A claim for additional credits must be raised in a
post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in compliance
with the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34 and therefore, it was
proper to construe the motion as a post-conviction petition. See NRS
34. 724(2)(b).
Appellant was sentenced to serve his Nevada sentence
consecutive to a pending Florida sentence. Following appellant's
conviction in Nevada, he was transferred to Florida to finish serving the
Florida sentence. In his motion, appellant claimed that he would have
been permitted by Florida officials to serve his Florida sentence in a
domiciliary program or in a work release program if not for the hold
Nevada had placed on him pending completion of his Florida sentence.
Appellant asserted that, as his pending Nevada sentence altered his
custody status in Florida, he was entitled to additional credits against his
SUPREME COURT
Nevada sentence. Appellant's claim was without merit. Appellant was
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1907A cep
not entitled to any additional Nevada credits for his time spent in
confinement for his Florida convictions. See NRS 176.055(2). Therefore,
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Next, appellant claimed that the Nevada Department of
Corrections improperly denied him the opportunity to earn work credits or
education credits due to his poor health. Appellant had no right to
employment while in prison. See NRS 209.461(1); Collins v. Palczewski,
841 F. Supp. 333, 336-37 (D. Nev. 1993) (recognizing that a prisoner has
no independent constitutional right to employment and that the Nevada
statutes do not mandate employment). Appellant also did not have a right
to education while in prison. See NRS 209.387; NRS 209.389(4).
Therefore, appellant cannot demonstrate that lack of employment or
education and the resulting lack of opportunity to earn statutory credits
violated any protected right. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
n
&gai J.
Hardesty
J. j.
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 ale?47.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Thomas Edward O'Donnell
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 194Th ae.