Ellis v. Russell, 031419 NVCA, 75704-COA

• Party Name: DUSTIN WILLIAM ELLIS, Appellant, v. PERRY RUSSELL, WARDEN, WSCC, Respondent.
• Judge Panel: Tac, Gibbons, Bulla Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
• Case Date: March 14, 2019
• Court: Nevada Court of Appeals

DUSTIN WILLIAM ELLIS, Appellant,

v.

PERRY RUSSELL, WARDEN, WSCC, Respondent.

No. 75704-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

March 14, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Dustin William Ellis appeals from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on February 27, 2018. ^[1] First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.

Ellis claimed the Nevada Department of Corrections erroneously failed to apply statutory credits to his parole eligibility for sentences imposed as a result of his convictions in district court case numbers CR13-1819 and CR14-0145. The district court concluded Ellis' claim regarding CR13-1819 was moot because he had already had a parole hearing in that case and his claim regarding CR14-0145 was not yet ripe because Ellis had not yet begun serving that sentence. The district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying Ellis' petition. See Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 38 n.l, 175 P.3d 906, 907 n.l (2008) (holding a case is not ripe for review when the harm alleged is remote or hypothetical); Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 29, 768 P.2d 882, 884 (1989) (noting that no statutory authority or case law permits a retroactive grant of parole); cf. Johnson v. Dir,, Nev. Dep't. of Prisons, 105 Nev. 314, 316, 774 P.2d 1047, 1049 (1989) (holding that questions about computation of an expiration date of a sentence are rendered moot when the sentence is expired). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.^[2]

Tac, Gibbons, Bulla

Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Matthew Washington appeals from an order of the district court denying a postconviction petition for. a writ of habeas corpus filed on December 19, 2017, and supplemental pleading filed on February 25, 2018 ^[1] Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson. Judge.

Washington claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to some of the evidence of his contacts with law enforcement that were introduced by the State at his penalty hearing. Washington failed to allege that, but for counsel's allegedly deficient performance, there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome at the sentencing hearing. See Strickland v. Washington, ...