Smith (Tony) v. State ( 2014 )

 a malicious prosecution, and that his attorney told him to wait for his
direct appeal to be resolved to file a post-conviction petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. These claims were outside the scope of claims permissible
in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a
judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a).
Next, appellant claimed that he was denied the benefit of his
plea agreement that his Nevada conviction run concurrently with his
California conviction. The district court ordered the Nevada sentence to
run concurrently with his California conviction. Thus, appellant failed to
demonstrate that his plea was invalid in this regard. See State v. Freese,
116 Nev. 1097, 1105, 13 P.3d 442, 448 (2000); Bryant v. State, 102 Nev.
268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986); see also Hubbard v. State, 110 Nev.
671, 675, 877 P.2d 519, 521 (1994).
Next, appellant claimed that he was being denied statutory
good time and work credits and that the credits were not applied correctly.
Such claims may not be raised in the same petition that challenged the
validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence. See NRS 34.738(3).
Thus, the district court did not err in denying this portion of the petition
without prejudice to file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging the computation of time served.
Regarding his motion that "casino ticket device has no value,"
an order denying this motion is not an appealable decision, and thus, we
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) (947A *Op
lack jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal. See Castillo v. State, 106
Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and the
appeal DISMISSED in part. 2
C.J.
Acku tap'
) •
J. J.
Pickering Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Tony Lee Smith
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A ex.