CROCKETTS v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In her petition, Crocketts alleged her due process rights were violated because she was denied parole on the first part of her sentence for voluntary manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon. Further, she claimed the prison was denying her the ability to earn the last half of a credit she needed for an educational degree. These claims were outside the scope of a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Crocketts was not challenging the validity of her judgment of conviction or the computation of time served. See NRS 34.724(1). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Crocketts’ petition.

On appeal, Crocketts claims that she should have appeared before the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners for the deadly weapon enhancement portion of her sentence. This claim was not raised below, and we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999). We also deny Crocketts’ request on appeal for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.