PETER JASON HELFRICH v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Michael A. Cherry, Senior Judge. Appellant Peter Helfrich argues that the district court erred in denying the petition. We disagree.

In the petition, Helfrich argued that the presentence investigation report (PSI) contained factual errors that counsel did not correct. Helfrich's sentence has since expired. As a result, any claims that challenge the sentence are moot. Martinez-Hernandez v. State, 132 Nev. 623, 627 & n.1, 380 P.3d 861, 864 & n.1 (2016). Accordingly, Helfrich's claims based on errors in the PSI and at sentencing, including claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel, are moot.

To the extent Helfrich raises claims that challenge the validity of the conviction, those claims are not moot. Martinez-Hernandez, 132 Nev. at 627, 380 P.3d at 864. But we nonetheless decline to address them for two reasons. First, Helfrich fails to make cogent argument or present relevant authority. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) (“It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court.”). Second, and more importantly, none of those claims were raised in the district court. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999) (declining to address claims that were not raised in postconviction habeas petition filed in district court).

Having determined that no relief is warranted, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.