POSEY v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his March 28, 2025, petition, Posey claimed he was entitled to 60 days of additional presentence credits. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of prohibition may issue to arrest the proceedings of a lower court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the lower court. NRS 34.320. A writ of mandamus or prohibition will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). “We generally review a district court's grant or denial of writ relief for an abuse of discretion.” Koller v. State, 122 Nev. 223, 226, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006).

“[A] claim for credit for presentence incarceration is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence, which may be raised on direct appeal or in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 739, 137 P.3d 1165, 1166 (2006); see NRS 34.724(2)(c) (providing a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the sole remedy available to challenge the computation of time served). Because a request for additional presentence credits may be raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Posey therefore had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy with which to challenge the sentencing court's decision concerning his presentence credits. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Posey's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court denied the petition on the merits finding that Posey was not entitled to additional presentence credit. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's decision for the reasons stated herein. See 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).