Hayes (Daveon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (Warden)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 5, 2021
• Docket: 83185
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAVEON KYREE HAYES, No. 83185 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, AUG 0 5 2021 Respondent, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLER159k 9UPREIAE COURT and BY 7, Y DEPUIY CLERK WILLIAM A. GITTERE, WARDEN, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner's conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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) (Petitioned ] cardies] 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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

f (1) 1947A aiejr, in the district court in the first instance. NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22.1 It appears that petitioner may have filed a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. If an application is rnade to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ. NRAP 22. Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so ORDERED.

Hardesty

.1:20tis"sarirs J. Parraguirre

Cadish

cc: Daveon Kyree Hayes Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A asagin