WORKS v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Works claimed he was entitled to additional presentence credits. We conclude the district court did not err by denying the petition because the claim was outside the scope of a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a); see also Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 745, 137 P.3d 1165, 1170 (2006) (“Because the scope of claims that may be raised in a habeas corpus petition is limited, the claim should be presented as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” (footnote omitted)). Further, to the extent Works raises new argument in his informal brief, we decline to consider it in the first instance on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.