HAYES v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hayes claims the district court erred by denying his motion. In his pleadings below, Hayes challenged the validity of his guilty plea, claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction because insufficient evidence was presented at his preliminary hearing to support a finding of probable cause, and appeared to claim that he was actually innocent. Hayes’ claims fell outside the limited scope of claims allowed when pursuing a writ of coram nobis. See Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. 706, 717, 310 P.3d 594, 601 (2013) (providing that a petition for a writ of coram nobis is limited to factual, not legal, errors “outside the record that affect the validity and regularity of the decision itself” and is not “the forum to relitigate the guilt or innocence of the petitioner”). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.