Gray v. Gentry, 110519 NVCA, 78015-COA
|Docket Nº:||78015-COA, 78016-COA|
|Party Name:||MALCOLM GRAY, Appellant, v. JO GENTRY, WARDEN, Respondent. MALCOLM GRAY, Appellant, v. JO GENTRY, WARDEN, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Gibbons, C.J. Tao, J., Bulla, J. Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Malcolm Gray appeals from an order of the district court denying two postconviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the computation of time served. The cases were consolidated on appeal. See NRAP 3(b). Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge.
Gray was convicted in district court case number C124036 of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and was sentenced to consecutive terms of life in prison with the possibility of parole after five years. He was paroled from the murder sentence and began serving the sentence for the deadly weapon enhancement on February 2, 2015.
In his petition in district court case no. A-18-775679-W (Docket No. 78016), filed on May 15, 2018, Gray claimed he was incarcerated five months longer than he should have been because his 2014 parole hearing was delayed five months. He asked that his 2019 parole hearing be advanced five months. Advancing his parole hearing would not change Gray's parole eligibility date, which is fixed at five years after he began serving the current sentence. And nothing would have allowed Gray a I retroactive grant of parole. See Niergarth v. State, 105 Nev. 26, 29, 768 P.2d 882, 884 (1989). We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.
The petition in district court case no. A-18-773980-W (Docket . No. 78015) was filed on May 4, 2018. Gray first claimed the Nevada; Department of Corrections (NDOC) failed to apply his 433 days of presentence credit to his deadly weapon enhancement, in violation of Mays v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 111 Nev. 1172, 901 P.2d 639 (1995). An offender is entitled to have all of his presentence time served credited toward his ultimate sentence. See NRS 176.055(1); Kuykendall v. State, 112 Nev. 1285, 1287, 926 P.2d 781, 783 (1996). Mays allows for the possibility that the credit for presentence confinement...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP