FERRILL JOSEPH VOLPICELLI v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ferrill Joseph Volpicelli appeals from a district court order denying a “petition for writ pursuant to NRS 34.360” filed on June 25, 2024. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

Volpicelli argues the district court erred by denying his claim that the sentencing court was without judicial authority to adjudicate him a habitual criminal because his prior convictions were non-qualifying under the habitual criminal statute. Under NRS 34.360, a person “may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of [his] imprisonment or restraint.” Here, the cause of Volpicelli's imprisonment, as reflected in the record before this court, is a June 18, 2013, amended judgment of conviction. Thus, Volpicelli's claim was not within the scope of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to NRS 34.360. Further, Volpicelli's claim challenged the validity of his judgment of conviction and sentence, and a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy with which to challenge the validity of a judgment of conviction or sentence.¹ NRS 34.724(2)(b). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Volpicelli's petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.²

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We express no opinion as to whether Volpicelli could meet the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34.

2.   As part of its denial of Volpicelli's petition, the district court entered a restrictive order limiting the claims that Volpicelli may file in the future. Volpicelli does not challenge this portion of the district court's order; thus, we do not consider it on appeal.