TEGRIN SHELLEY v. NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Tegrin Shelley appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of time served filed on December 19, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.

In his petition, Shelley alleged that the Nevada Department of Corrections incorrectly calculated the computation of his parole eligibility, projected expiration, and mandatory parole release dates.¹ Shelley failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing the petition.² Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Shelley's petition.³ See NRS 34.724(1), (2)(c). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Shelley asserted in his petition he was “not necessarily” challenging the computation of presentence credit he was awarded at sentencing. We note any such challenge would need to be raised in a separate postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See NRS 34.738(3); see also Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 746, 137 P.3d 1165, 1170 (2006) (providing that “a claim for presentence credit is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence” and not a challenge to the computation of time served).

2.   Shelley attached to his petition exhibits which purportedly showed that he attempted to grieve his computation challenge. However, the exhibits reflect that prison officials rejected his grievance because it failed to comply with prison regulations. Thus, Shelley's exhibits do not demonstrate he first exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing the instant petition.

3.   The district court erred by denying the petition on the merits because Shelley had not demonstrated that he had exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing the petition. Nevertheless, the district court properly denied the requested relief because the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice. See NRS 34.810(2); Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). Nothing in this order should be construed as precluding Shelley from filing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of time served after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted.