KURTZE v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

In this original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner appears to challenge his judgment of conviction on several grounds—including that he is mentally ill.

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”).

Moreover, 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. See NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22. Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised herein, we determine that our intervention is not warranted, 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.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.