Burriola (Anthony) v. Warden ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  and he was denied an administrative appeal. The district court granted
    the State's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust
    administrative remedies. We conclude that the district court erred in
    failing to consider the petition on its merits, 2 but we affirm because the
    district court reached the correct result in dismissing the petition.   See
    Wyatt v. State, 
    86 Nev. 294
    , 298, 
    468 P.2d 338
    , 341 (1970).
    Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process
    because he received: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) written
    statement of the fact finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons
    for disciplinary action; and (3) an opportunity to present witnesses and
    evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell, 
    418 U.S. 539
    , 563-69 (1974). Confrontation
    and cross-examination are not required in prison disciplinary proceedings
    because these procedures present "greater hazards to institutional
    interests."   
    Id. at 567-68
    . Some evidence supports the decision by the
    prison disciplinary hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 
    472 U.S. 445
    ,
    2Because statutory credits affect the computation of time served,
    appellant's petition was governed by the post-conviction provisions of NRS
    34.720-.830. See NRS 34.724(2)(c). Those provisions do not condition the
    availability of habeas review on the exhaustion of administrative
    remedies.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    ''.-90K4616MIIMEN-
    7-AZIEVAREMES5SEEMENZRZWOMMIERSKI                                             y
    455 (1985), and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was
    entitled to relief. 3
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4
    u/1P6                J.
    Douglas
    J.
    Saitta
    3 Tothe extent that appellant challenged the grievance system and
    the denial of an administrative appeal, his claims were not cognizable in a
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden, 
    100 Nev. 489
    ,
    
    686 P.2d 250
     (1984).
    4We  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.
    3
    cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
    Anthony J. Burriola
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Carson City District Attorney
    Carson City Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A    .40.
    "                                     k",2eor
    i
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 62552

Filed Date: 9/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014