IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ERIC MATHEWS, No. 68285
Appellant,
vs.
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY DIVISION OF PAROLE AND
FILED
PROBATION, MAY 1 1 2016
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition
for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of an application to change
probation discharge status. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Ronald J. Israel, Judge.
In 2014, appellant Eric Mathews submitted to respondent, the
Nevada Department of Public Safety Division of Parole and Probation, an
application seeking a recommendation that his parole discharge status be
changed from dishonorable to honorable under SB 282 (2005). The
Division denied the request, explaining that Mathews had received a
dishonorable discharge because he tested positive for controlled
substances and then failed to complete an inpatient treatment program,
which disqualified him from consideration. Mathews subsequently filed a
petition for a writ of mandamus with the district court, which the court
denied after determining that SB 282's change of discharge status law,
printed in the 2005 Statutes of Nevada, Chapter 476, Section 16, had
expired in 2008, and that the law did not apply to persons given a
dishonorable discharge for failing a drug test. Mathews has appealed.
Having reviewed the parties' briefs, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying extraordinary relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A ve
6-1'186
'
State, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Coley, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 13, P.3d
(2016) (explaining that this court, while reviewing statutory
interpretation issues• de novo, otherwise reviews orders denying
mandamus relief for abuse of discretion). This court recently held, in
State, Department of Public Safety v. Coley, that because the law expired,
the Division did not have authority to accept SB 282 applications or any
discretion in reviewing any such applications received. Id. at .
Moreover, we held, the Division does not act arbitrarily or capriciously in
denying petitions from applicants with dishonorable discharges based on
factors other than the nonpayment of fees, as the law "was not created as
a mechanism to allow individuals to avoid court-imposed probation
obligations, other than restitution or payment of fees." Id. at .
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
44; J.
Hardesty
Saitta
J.
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Gentile, Cristalli, Miller, Armeni & Savarese, PLLC
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
aillialttit&a r‘;