Johnson (Nathanial) v. Warden ( 2013 )

 Based upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude
that the district court did not err in determining that appellant was not
entitled to relief. NRS 34.724(2)(c) provides that a post-conviction petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy available to challenge the
computation of time served, and therefore, a writ of mandamus is not
available to challenge the application and calculation of appellant's
statutory credits. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying the petition for a writ of mandamus. 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Hardesty
Otakolt - 4 j4/
•
ParragUirre
J.
2 Thedistrict court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus on the
merits, but should not have reached the merits of appellant's claim
pursuant to NRS 34.724(2)(c). However, we affirm because the district
court reached the right result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. State,
86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
(A,„
cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Nathanial Johnson
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A