TALLEY v. The State of Nevada; and Brian Williams, Warden, Real Parties in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges the constitutionality of Nevada’s robbery and kidnapping statutes and raises a claim of double jeopardy.

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”).

Moreover, we note that a challenge to a judgment of conviction must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34