Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Anthony Brian HAWKINS, Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Hawkins claimed he was entitled to the application of statutory credits to his minimum sentences. The district court found Hawkins’ sentences were aggregated and he had already appeared for a parole hearing. These findings are supported by the record. Accordingly, Hawkins’ claim was moot. See Williams v. State Dep't of Corr., 133 Nev. 594, 600 n.7, 402 P.3d 1260, 1265 n.7 (2017).
Hawkins next claimed he was entitled to labor and study credits for times he was able and ready to participate but the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) did not have enough opportunities available. This court has addressed a similar claim and found it to lack merit. See Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. 747, 748, 433 P.3d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 2018) (analyzing statute that allows for credits for “diligence in labor and study” (quotation marks omitted)).
Finally, Hawkins contends on appeal that the district court erred by not considering his supplemental pleading filed on November 27, 2019, and by denying his claim without conducting a hearing. It is within the district court's discretion whether to consider additional pleadings, see NRS 34.750(5), and Hawkins does not demonstrate the district court abused its discretion by not considering Hawkins’ additional pleading. Further, the district court is not required to conduct a hearing if it determines a petitioner is not entitled to relief. See NRS 34.770(2). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Hawkins is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.1
FOOTNOTES
1. In his informal brief on appeal, Hawkins contends NDOC's calculation of his sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and SB 71. He also contends the district court overlooked NRS 209.461. These are new arguments not properly raised below, cf. Barnhart v. State, 122 Nev. 301, 303-04, 130 P.3d 650, 651-52 (2006), and we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance, see McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 80555-COA
Decided: September 23, 2020
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)