KARYL CLARKE v. JACQUELINE GRAVATT (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Karyl Clarke appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Tina Talim, Judge.

Clarke filed a postconviction habeas petition on April 14, 2025, challenging the validity of his misdemeanor conviction and sentence in North Las Vegas Municipal Court case no. CR001292-23. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Clarke's claims were either barred pursuant to NRS 34.810 or unsupported by specific factual allegations. On appeal, Clarke contends the district court erred by denying his claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

We conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the petition because Clarke is not eligible for postconviction relief under NRS 34.724(1). Although NRS 34.724(1) states “[a]ny person convicted of a crime and under sentence of death or imprisonment” may file a postconviction habeas petition, Nevada's postconviction scheme clearly contemplates limiting postconviction relief to persons who were convicted and sentenced in the district court. See Kapetan v. State, No. 66768, 2015 WL 2452347 (Nev. May 19, 2015) (Order of Affirmance); see, e.g., NRS 34.726(1) (stating a petition must be filed “within 1 year after the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution issues its remittitur” if an appeal has been taken); NRS 34.730(4) (stating the district court clerk must file a postconviction habeas petition “as a new action separate and distinct from any original proceeding in which a conviction has been had” and “with the record of the original proceeding to which it relates”);¹ see also Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 874, 34 P.3d 519, 528-29 (2001) (stating statutory language must be construed “to avoid absurd or unreasonable results” and to avoid rendering any part of a statute nugatory), abrogated on other grounds by Rippo v. State, 134 Nev. 411, 423 n.12, 423 P.3d 1084, 1097 n.12 (2018).

Because Clarke was convicted and sentenced in the municipal court, he could not challenge his conviction and sentence by filing a postconviction habeas petition. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying the petition,² see Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it was based on the wrong reason), and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that municipal courts are not required to be courts of record unless designated so by ordinance. See NRS 5.010(2); NRS 5.015(1).

2.   Having concluded that Clarke was not entitled to file a postconviction habeas petition, we further conclude that the district court did not err by denying Clarke's request for the appointment of counsel.