Flanagan (Corey) v. Warden

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: October 13, 2017
• Docket: 71623
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

COREY FLANAGAN, No. 71623 Appellant, vs. ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN, FILED Respondent. OCT 1 3 2017 ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREMECOURT BY D E PUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.' Eleventh Judicial District Court, Pershing County; Jim C. Shirley, Judge. Appellant Corey Flanagan asserted that credits he earned under NRS 209.4465 should be applied to his parole eligibility pursuant to subsection 7 of that statute. 2 This issue became moot after the notice of appeal was filed. See Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("[E]ven though a case may present a live controversy at its beginning, subsequent events may render the case moot."). In particular, Flanagan has discharged or been paroled from all of his sentences. As a result, this court cannot grant him any relief even if the credits should have been applied to his parole eligibility. See Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 29, 768 P.2d 882, 884 (1989) ("[W]e are unaware of

1This appeal has been submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument. NRAP 34(0(3), (g); see also NRAP 31(d)(1); Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

2 The amendments to NRS 209.4465 adopted in 2007 do not apply as Flanagan committed the offense at issue before the effective date of those amendments. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 19474 aigagaa any statutory or case-law authority for the proposition that the Parole Board has authority to grant a retroactive parole."). Because the issue therefore is moot, see Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720, 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (noting that this court has a duty "to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it" (quotation marks omitted)); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613, 614 P.2d 8, 9 (1980) (explaining that this court decides appeals only when doing so affects the legal rights of the parties), we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

,J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge Corey Flanagan Attorney GenerallCarson City Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A