GEROLD CENTENO v. WARDEN HDSP AND THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Gerold Centeno appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of time served filed on November 29, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.

Centeno claimed that he is entitled to the application of statutory credits to his minimum sentence pursuant to NRS 209.4465. The district court found Centeno's sentence was the result of convictions for attempted sexual assault with a minor under 14 and attempted lewdness with a child under 14—both category B felonies—committed after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8).¹ Centeno conceded he was convicted of attempted sexual assault and attempted lewdness, and he does not dispute that he committed those felonies after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8). Because Centeno was convicted of category B felonies, see NRS 193.153(1)(a)(1) (categories for the crimes of attempt); NRS 200.366(3) (category for the crime of sexual assault with a minor under 14); NRS 201.230(2) (category for the crime of lewdness with a child under 14), committed after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8)(d), see 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 525, § 22, at 3196, he was precluded from the application of credits to his minimum sentence. Further, because Centeno is not eligible to apply statutory credit toward his minimum sentence pursuant to NRS 209.4465(8)(d), he was not entitled to apply statutory credits toward his minimum sentence pursuant to NRS 209.4465(9). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.² Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   NRS 209.4465(8) exempts offenders who have committed certain crimes, including a sexual offense punishable as a felony and category B felonies, from being eligible to have statutory credits applied to their minimum parole eligibility.

2.   Centeno also appears to argue the district court erred in adopting an order submitted by the Nevada Attorney General's Office. However, parties may submit proposed orders to the district court, see EDCR 5.515, and the court does not abuse its discretion by adopting a litigant's proposed order, see Eivazi v. Eivazi, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 44, 537 P.3d 476, 482-83 (Ct. App. 2023). Any failure of the district court to ensure that Centeno had an opportunity to review and respond to the proposed order was harmless. See NRS 178.598 (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”).