IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PETER QUINN ELVIK, No. 69369
Petitioner,
vs.
ADAM P. LAXALT, ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
FILED
JAN 1 4 2016
CIE r.EMAN
- I EDO'
/111 4 At
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner
seeks an order directing that he be considered for parole pursuant to the
legislative changes set forth in A.B. 267. See A.B. 267, 78th Leg. (Nev.
2015). We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and
without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline
to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRS
34.170. This issue should be presented to the district court in the first
instance where a factual record may be made regarding the computation
of time served and where the district court may consider in the first
instance the legislative amendments set forth in A.B. 267 and this court's
recent decision in State v. Boston, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 98, P.3d
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A 4570).
(2015) determining that the new legislation would apply to aggregate
consecutive sentences.' Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
Hard
ditta
J.
cc: Peter Quinn Elvik
Attorney General/Carson City
'It appears that the petitioner named the wrong respondent in that
the Director of the Department of Corrections determines when a prisoner
is eligible to appear before the Parole Board. Petitioner may fix the error
in naming the incorrect respondent in any new action filed in the district
court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 40
Elvik (Peter) v. Attorney General
Combined Opinion