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.
Ronald Curtis WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Williams contends the district court erred by denying his petition, filed on March 16, 2020, without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must raise claims supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
Williams claimed he was entitled to the application of statutory credits to the minimum and maximum terms imposed for a conviction of attempted murder. Williams acknowledged that he had expired that sentence before he filed the instant petition. Any question as to the computation of time served on an expired sentence is moot. Johnson v. Dir., Nevada Dep't of Prisons, 105 Nev. 314, 316, 774 P.2d 1047, 1049 (1989). Because Williams had expired that sentence, his claim was moot, and we conclude the district court did not err by denying the claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Williams also claimed he was entitled to the application of presentence credits to each of his sentences. Williams was not entitled to have the credit applied to each consecutive term of imprisonment imposed; the credits were properly applied to the ultimate sentence imposed in this case. See NRS 176.055(1); Kuykendall v. State, 112 Nev. 1285, 1287, 926 P.2d 781, 783 (1996). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Finally, Williams claimed he was denied the constitutional right to participate in labor or study programs. Inmates have no such right. See NRS 209.4465(2); NRS 209.461(1); Collins v. Palczewski, 841 F. Supp. 333, 336-37 (D. Nev. 1993) (recognizing that a prisoner has no independent constitutional right to employment and that the Nevada statutes do not mandate employment). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
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. 82226-COA
Decided: April 23, 2021
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)