CARILLO v. NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Octavio Carillo appeals from an order of the district court dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.

In his April 1, 2019, petition, Carillo claimed the Board of Parole Commissioners improperly denied his request for parole because it did not follow its own internal guidelines. 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 mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. “We generally review a district court's grant or denial of writ relief for an abuse of discretion.” Roller v. State, 122 Nev. 223, 226, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006).

“Parole is an act of grace in Nevada, and this court will not disturb a decision to deny parole for any reason authorized by statute.” Anselmo v. Bisbee, 133 Nev. 317, 323, 396 P.3d 848, 853 (2017). However, “eligible Nevada inmates have a statutory right to be considered for parole by the Board,” and “[t]his court cannot say that an inmate receives proper consideration when the Board’s decision is based in part on an inapplicable aggravating factor.” Id.

Carillo alleged the Board did not follow its own internal guidelines when it denied his request for parole, but he did not state any reasons why the Board denied his request for parole or which guidelines he believed were not followed. Therefore, Carillo failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief was warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Carillo’s petition.

Next, Carillo argues the denial of parole violated his equal protection rights and the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, Carillo did not raise these claims before the district court and we decline to consider them in the first instance on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.