From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Williams

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 28, 2016
No. 71270 (Nev. App. Dec. 28, 2016)

Opinion

No. 71270

12-28-2016

ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Appellant Anthony K. Anderson appeals from a district court order denying the postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus he filed on May 10, 2016. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathy A. Hardcastle, Senior Judge.

This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).

Anderson's informal brief is largely unintelligible. He appears to claim the district court erred by denying his habeas petition because of an ex-post-facto violation and the Nevada Department of Corrections' improper application of NRS 209.4465.

Anderson also appears to argue the district court violated the rule against ex parte communications and erred by not considering the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Vonseydewitz v. Warden, Docket No. 66159 (Order of Reversal and Remand, June 24, 2015); the Parole Board violated NRS 213.142, and he did not receive credit for his employment at the time of his arrest. To the extent these claims are properly raised, we conclude they are meritless. --------

We conclude the 2007 amendments to NRS 209.4465 applied in Anderson's case because he was convicted of crimes that he committed on or between October 1, 1999, and August 31, 2009. See generally State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Pullin), 124 Nev. 564, 567, 188 P.3d 1079, 1081 (2008) (observing "that under Nevada law, the proper penalty is the penalty in effect at the time of the commission of the offense"). However, even assuming Anderson should have received credit towards his minimum sentence under the version of NRS 209.4465 that was in effect at the time he first began committing his crimes, his only remedy would be the application of the credit towards a parole eligibility determination. The district court found that Anderson had already appeared before the Parole Board and, therefore, his habeas claim was moot. We conclude the district court did not err in this regard. See NRS 213.10705; Niergarth v. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 28-29, 768 P.2d 882, 883-84 (1989) (holding no statutory authority or case law permits retroactive grant of parole). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Silver cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court

Hon. Kathy A. Hardcastle, Senior Judge

Anthony K. Anderson

Attorney General/Carson City

Attorney General/Las Vegas

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Anderson v. Williams

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 28, 2016
No. 71270 (Nev. App. Dec. 28, 2016)
Case details for

Anderson v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY K. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 28, 2016

Citations

No. 71270 (Nev. App. Dec. 28, 2016)