BONHAM v. JOHNSON (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Bonham claimed he is entitled to the application of statutory credits to his minimum sentences pursuant to NRS 209.4465(7)(b). The district court found Bonham's sentences were the result of convictions for first-degree kidnapping and sexual assault, both committed after the effective date of NRS 209.4465(8). These findings are supported by the record. Because Bonham's convictions were for category A and B felonies, see NRS 193.330(1)(a)(1); NRS 200.320; NRS 200.366(2), 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 sentences. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Bonham next claimed the application of NRS 209.4465(8) violates the Due Process Clause. The application of statutory credits “only serves to make an offender eligible for parole earlier.” Williams v. State, Dep't of Corr., 133 Nev. 594, 600 n.7, 402 P.3d 1260, 1265 n.7 (2017). And Nevada's parole scheme “creates no protectable liberty interest sufficient to invoke the Due Process Clause.” Anselmo v. Bisbee, 133 Nev. 317, 320, 396 P.3d 848, 850-51 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Bonham next claimed the application of NRS 209.4465(8) violates the Equal Protection Clause. This court has addressed a similar claim and found it to lack merit. See Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. 747, 748-51, 433 P.3d 306, 308-10 (Ct. App. 2018). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Finally, Bonham 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 Bonham committed his crimes, its application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Bonham attempts to raise additional claims on appeal, they were not raised in the district court, and we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999).