VONSEYDEWITZ v. STATE (2019)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.

Appellant argues that his classification as a Tier 3 sex offender pursuant to NRS 179D.117 is improper because application of the 2007 legislative amendments in Assembly Bill 579 (A.B. 579) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.² We conclude that the district court did not err because appellant's ex post facto argument lacks merit. State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 519-20, 306 P.3d 369, 388 (2013) (determining that retroactive application of A.B. 579 to juvenile sex offenders did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions); ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1053-54, 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (Masto II) (determining that legislative amendments in A.B. 579 to sex offender registration did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

FOOTNOTES

1.   Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response from the State is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See NRAP 34(f)(3).

2.   In his informal brief, appellant also argues that he will be subject to various movement and residence restrictions in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, appellant did not raise these claims in the district court. We decline to consider them in the first instance.

3.   The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.