JOSEPH WAYNE JONES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Joseph Wayne Jones appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on June 12, 2025.  ¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Christy L. Craig, Judge.

On appeal, Jones contends that trial-level counsel did not send “a request to California for evidence for sentencing” and that there is no proof that the Superior Court of California received an order requesting such evidence. The district court determined that Jones’ petition was procedurally barred, and Jones does not challenge this determination on appeal. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Thus, Jones has forfeited any such challenge, and he fails to demonstrate the district court erred by denying his petition. See Hung v. Genting Berhad, 138 Nev. 547, 549-51, 513 P.3d 1285, 1287-88 (Ct. App. 2022); see also State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) (“Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory.”). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.  ²

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Jones’ pleading was titled “motion given notice of mistake on court order May 23, 2025.” The district court construed this pleading as a postconviction habeas petition, and Jones does not challenge this construction on appeal. To the extent Jones intended to only file a motion and not a postconviction habeas petition, his appeal from the denial of that motion would not be properly before us based on a lack jurisdiction. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction only when a statute or court rule provides for appeal).

2.   To the extent Jones raises additional arguments on appeal, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief or need not be addressed in light of our disposition.