JOHNSON v. WILLIAMS (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his October 2, 2019, petition, Johnson first claimed the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) erroneously failed to apply his statutory credits toward his minimum parole eligibility date and his maximum term. The district court concluded Johnson received a parole hearing and the hearing rendered Johnson's claim concerning the application of credits toward his minimum parole eligibility date moot. See Williams v. State Dep't of Corr, 133 Nev. 594, 600 n.7, 402 P.3d 1260, 1265 n.7 (2017) (“[N]o relief can be afforded where the offender has already expired the sentence or appeared before the parole board on the sentence.” (internal citation omitted)). The district court also concluded NDOC's reports demonstrated that Johnson's credits had been properly applied toward his maximum term. The record before this court supports the district court's decisions, and we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Second, Johnson claimed he was entitled to additional work and meritorious credits because he has made every possible effort to participate in educational, rehabilitation, and work programs but was restricted by his custody level. The district court found NDOC's documents demonstrated that Johnson received the appropriate amount of work and meritorious credits for his actual labor and participation in programs. We conclude the district court properly determined Johnson was not entitled to work or meritorious credits where he did not actually work or participate in programs. See NRS 209.4465(2), (5); Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. 747, 748, 433 P.3d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 2018). Therefore, the district court properly denied the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Johnson also appeared to assert that he was improperly paid a lower wage for his labor because he was held in protective custody. However, this was a challenge to Johnson's conditions of confinement, and a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper vehicle to raise such a challenge. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev, 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984). Therefore, Johnson was not entitled to relief based upon this claim.