BRAZ v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Braz claimed he is entitled to the application of statutory credits to his minimum sentence pursuant to NRS 209.4465(7)(b). The district court found Braz's sentence was the result of a conviction for possession of a trafficking quantity of a controlled substance committed after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8). These findings are supported by the record. Because Braz was convicted of a category B felony, see 2015 Nev. Stat., ch. 506, § 6, at 3088, committed after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8)(d), see 2007 Nev. Stat., ch. 525, § 22, at 3196, he was precluded from the application of credits to his minimum sentence. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Braz also claimed the application of NRS 209.4465(8) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. A requirement for an Ex Post Facto Clause violation is that the statute applies to events occurring before it was enacted. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29 (1981). Because NRS 209.4465(8) was enacted before Braz committed his crime, its application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Having concluded Braz is not entitled to relief, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.