Legrand v. Dist. Ct. (Sutton (Kevin)) ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                    concluding that Sutton's postconviction petition did not challenge his
    conviction or sentence but contested the constitutionality of the parole
    board's interpretation and application NRS 193.165. As such, the district
    court reasoned, Sutton's "complaint is aimed at more than his guilt or
    innocence, but is intended to challenge the very existence of the statute."
    Therefore, according to the district court, the petition could be filed in the
    court for the county in which Sutton is incarcerated. See NRS 34.738(1).
    Petitioner argues that Sutton's postconviction petition
    challenges the validity of his sentence and therefore must be filed in the
    jurisdiction where his conviction occurred. As such, the district court is
    obligated under NRS 34.738(2)(b) to transfer the petition to the clerk of
    the Eighth Judicial District Court. We agree. In his postconviction
    petition, Sutton argues that NRS 193.165, as applied to his sentence,
    created a separate offense requiring a parole board hearing for release and
    therefore violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double
    jeopardy. That is a challenge to the validity of his sentence, despite
    Sutton's assertions in his pleadings below that it is not.   See generally In
    re Samford, 
    249 S.W.3d 761
    , 762 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) (observing that
    pleading is defined by its substance). Because NRS 34.738(2)(b) compels
    the district court to transfer Sutton's postconviction petition to the Eighth
    Judicial District Court, a writ of mandamus is warranted.            See NRS
    34.160 (providing that mandamus is available to compel the performance
    of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust,
    or station); Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 
    97 Nev. 601
    , 603, 637
    'The district court filed an amended order denying the motion for
    reconsideration in this court on November 19, 2015.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (Oj 1947A    el.
    P.2d 534, 536 (1981) ("A writ of mandamus will issue when the respondent
    has a clear, present legal duty to act."). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
    OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the
    district court to transfer Sutton's postconviction petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus to the clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court pursuant
    to NRS 34.738(1), (2)(b).
    L./      CUM              , J.
    Saitta
    '   J.
    Gibbons                                        Pickering
    cc: Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Attorney General/Reno
    Kevin Devon Sutton
    Pershing County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) )47A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 69138

Filed Date: 12/16/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021