Opinion
No. 75832-COA
03-14-2019
RUBEN PAUL PEREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND WARDEN JO GENTRY, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Ruben Paul Perez appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 5, 2017. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3).
First, Perez claims the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) did not apply the statutory credits he earned to his minimum sentence as required by NRS 209.4465(7)(b). We conclude the district court properly determined Perez was not entitled to relief on this claim. The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that credits earned under NRS 209.4465 apply to parole eligibility as provided in NRS 209.4465(7)(b) (1997) "if the sentencing statute did not specify a minimum sentence that had to be served before parole eligibility." Williams v. State Dep't of Corr., 133 Nev. ___, ___, 402 P.3d 1260, 1262 (2017) (emphasis added). Perez was sentenced under a statute that specified a minimum term that must be served before parole eligibility. See NRS 200.030(4)(b)(2) (setting forth the sentence of "life with the possibility of parole, with parole eligibility beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served"). Therefore, the credits Perez earns under NRS 209.4465 cannot be applied to his parole eligibility.
Second, Perez claims he was entitled to work credits because he was willing to work or attend educational programs. We conclude the district court properly determined he was not entitled to work credits for work he did not perform and he has not demonstrated he did not receive work credits for work he did perform. See NRS 209;4465(2); Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. ___, ___, 433 P.3d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 2018).
Finally, Perez claims NDOC's failure to apply the statutory credits he has earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465(7)(b) based on the date he committed his crime violates his right to equal protection of the law. We conclude this claim is without merit because "the disparate application of statutory credits to parole eligibility based on when an offender committed an offense is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and thus does not offend the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions." Vickers, 134 Nev. at ___, 433 P.3d at 310.
Having concluded Perez is not entitled to relief, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
To the extent Perez also claimed that a conflict between NRS 209.4465 and NRS 213.120 created an ex post facto violation, we conclude his claim lacks merit. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 (1981) (explaining that an ex post facto violation occurs when the legislature enacts a law "which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed" (quotation marks omitted)).
/s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge
Ruben Paul Perez
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk