Misiewicz v. Warden
This text of Misiewicz v. Warden (Misiewicz v. Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
was computing his sentence, appellant failed to support this claim with specific facts that, if true, would have entitled him to relief. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Appellant also claimed that NDOC improperly refused to place him in a minimum security facility. Placement is a condition of confinement and thus may not be challenged in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 686 P.2d 250 (1984). Further, we note that appellant is currently out on parole and this issue is moot. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the petition, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardest ei
J. Douglas isr As 7
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge William Carl Misiewicz Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Misiewicz v. Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misiewicz-v-warden-nev-2014.