for a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to challenge the
validity of a guilty plea after sentencing. The State argued that
construing the motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, the motion was procedurally barred as it was filed almost nine
years after entry of the judgment of conviction. See NRS 34.726(1). The
district court determined that appellant was not challenging the validity
of his judgment of conviction and sentence, but was challenging the
computation of time served and denied the motion without prejudice for
him to file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
To the extent that appellant raised a claim challenging an
alleged breach of the plea agreement, the motion was untimely filed and
appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse his procedural
defects. 2 See id. However, to the extent that appellant challenged the
computation of time served, the district court correctly determined that
this claim must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, see NRS 34.724(2)(c), and could not be raised in a petition that also
challenged the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence, see
NRS 34.738(3). Accordingly, we conclude that the motion was properly
denied in this case. 3
2 Appellant argued that he had good cause because he just learned
that the Department was incorrectly structuring his sentence. However,
this does not provide good cause as the breach claim was reasonably
available to be raised in a timely petition as the sentences were structured
in 2005. The fact that appellant only thought to ask about his sentence
structure in April 2014, does not provide good cause for the delay in this
case.
3 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to appoint counsel.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
Motion to Modify Sentence
In his motion filed on June 18, 2014, appellant argued that his
sentence should be reduced because of mental health issues and his
amenability to future treatment and because he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Appellant's claims fell outside the narrow scope of
claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See Edwards v. State,
112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without
considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we
conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4
7gerg,
Gibbons
, C.J.
J.
Saitta
4We 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 1040
.9
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Michael S. French
Attorney GenerallCarson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 4
(0) 1947A 400