BLOCKSON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Blockson argues the district court erred by denying his claims that he was erroneously convicted of a felony instead of a misdemeanor, the State “maliciously” rewrote the cruelty to animals statute in all of its pleadings, and the State prosecuted him for a crime they knew he did not commit. These claims were outside the scope of a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea because these claims did not allege that his plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that his plea was entered without the effective assistance of counsel. See NRS 34.810(l)(a). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying these claims.

Next, Blockson argues he was not given an opportunity to respond to the State's reply to his petition. Blockson was not entitled to respond to the State because the State did not file a motion to dismiss Blockson's petition. See NRS 34.750(4), (5). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition without first allowing Blockson to respond. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.