BEY v. STATE (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Bey argues the district court erred by denying his petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his petition, Bey contended the method for determining the credit that should be applied toward an offender's sentence had been revised by Senate Bill (S.B.) 413 and that those revisions should apply to him.² The district court concluded Bey was challenging his computation for time served and denied the petition because Bey had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a postconviction habeas petition and because S.B. 413 does not become effective for calculation purposes until July 1, 2025. Consistent with our opinion in Smith v. State, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, ––– P.3d –––– (Ct. App. 2024), we conclude the district court did not err by denying Bey's petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   S.B. 413 was passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2023.