Iden (Richard) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: March 5, 2020
• Docket: 80620
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RICHARD CARY IDEN, No. 80620 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK, MAR 0 5 2020 Respondent, ELIZABETH A. BROWN and CLERK OFSUPREME COURT A• THE STATE OF NEVADA, BY oitnor c DEPUTY Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

In this original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner appears to seek release from detention based on his assertion that his sentence was vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4,1010 -0$77 11111 I

' 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) CPetitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.1

Pieku , C.J. Pickering

, J. J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Richard Cary Iden Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).

(0) 1947A .4410D 2