BLACK v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Black contends the district court erred by denying his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his petition, Black claimed that the Nevada Revised Statutes were enacted in violation of the Separation of Powers Clause of the Nevada Constitution and that the City of Las Vegas was improperly incorporated. Blacks claims neither challenged the validity of his guilty plea nor alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, they were outside the scope of claims permissible in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a); see also Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058 1059 (1994) (“[C]laims that are appropriate for a direct appeal must be pursued on direct appeal, or they will be considered waived in subsequent proceedings.”), disapproved of on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 150, 979 P.2d 222, 223-24 (1999). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying Black's petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.