MALONE v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Acknowledging that his sentences are within legal limits and consistent with the guilty pleas, appellant Barry Malone urges this court to construe his notices of appeal as an expression of dissatisfaction with his guilty pleas and remand for the district court to treat them as postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. We decline to do so. If Malone is dissatisfied with his guilty pleas, he may file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in compliance with NRS chapter 34 in the district court. Malone's reliance on this court's decision in Harris v. State is misplaced because Harris acknowledges that a direct appeal is separate and distinct from the remedy of a postconviction habeas petition. 130 Nev. 435, 445, 329 P.3d 619, 626 (2014) (recognizing that “excepted from the exclusive-remedy language [in NRS 34.724 is] the remedy of a direct appeal and remedies that are incident to the proceedings in the trial court” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Malone does not challenge the judgments of conviction or sentences, he has not demonstrated any error. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.