Wirth v. the Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CHARLES MATTHEW WIRTH, No. 69108
Petitioner,
vs.
THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, JUN 1 3 2016
Respondent,
and
STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner
Charles Wirth alleges that he has not been allowed to file a pro se motion
to correct an illegal sentence in the district court because he is represented
by counsel in habeas proceedings pending in the district court.
We have consistently held that the district court clerk has a
ministerial duty to accept and file documents presented for filing if those
documents are in proper form. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 1372, 904 P.2d 1039, 1042 (1995) (holding that the
district court clerk had a duty to file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and "receive" a civil complaint); Bowman v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 102 Nev. 474, 478, 728 P.2d 433, 435 (1986) (holding that the clerk
has a ministerial duty to accept and file documents unless given specific
directions from the district court to the contrary). This court has further
recognized that the clerk of the district court has a duty to maintain
accurate files. See Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 951, 840 P.2d
1232, 1233 (1992) (holding that clerk has no authority to return
documents submitted for filing and must maintain such documents in the
record of the case); Donoho v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 108 Nev. 1027,
1029-30, 842 P.2d 731, 733 (1992) (holding that the clerk of the district
SUPREME COURT
DP
NEVADA
(0) I947A oge)17
court has a duty to file documents and to keep an accurate record of the
proceedings before the court).
Because a motion to correct an illegal sentence is a separate
action from a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, see
Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 709, 918 P.2d 321, 325 (1996) (recognizing
that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is a separate proceeding that is
not governed by NRS chapter 34), it appeared from this court's review that
Wirth had set forth an issue of arguable merit and had no adequate
remedy at law. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Thus, this court directed
the State to file an answer. The State does not dispute that Wirth should
be granted relief in relation to the filing of the motion to correct an illegal
sentence. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the
district court to FILE THE MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL
SENTENCE.'
Hardesty
J. J.
Pickering [
IA copy of the motion to correct an illegal sentence is attached to this
order. We previously determined that petitioner was not entitled to any
relief on his claim relating to the points and authorities as he is
represented by counsel in the postconviction proceedings. See Wirth v.
Fifth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 69108 (Order Directing Answer,
March 17, 2016). However, we caution the district court against returning
legal mail unopened as there does not appear to be any practical means of
determining from unopened correspondence whether the documents
should be filed or received and maintained in the court's records. We deny
as moot the request to clarify our prior decision directing an answer.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Kimberly Wanker, District Judge
Charles Matthew Wirth
Attorney General/Carson City
Nye County District Attorney
Nye County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A )41E)94
1 Case No.
* VIE , "
2 Dept No.
3
4
5 IN THE sr JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE'; STA j
TE 9F NEV
6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF plite
7
8 FIXED
9 STATE OF NEVADA,
JAN 2.7 2016
Plaintiff,
10
11 Vs.
_m
ja '
ey /
fr
/< LINDEMAN
ClaRKup EME
DEPOT'? CLERK
da---r/eS tdc.-) 44-1/1
12 Defendant.
13
14
15
MOTION TO RRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE
16 a rle • The defendant in this action, in pro
se,
17 oves this court for an ord granting defendant l s motion to correct
illegal
18 senten
ce. This motion is de and based upon the provisions
of NRS 4 176.555
19 (The cou
rt may correct an illegal sentence
at any time); all papers, pleadings
20 and doc
uments on Li. therin; and the following points and
authorities.
21
STATEMENT OF FACTS
22
Sentioneed re/07i oFfizeriSe c / cLc ?led
23
■ ;(19 icerecciam icy vC 1"-R
24 0
4 :21elas .?0 U
25 C) ISc
i 5-711an c 4-1 a, 71 dad-4,
A i rs ctel d
26
% r wee/ ht -9 C co- to V,ø/ ait
27
eoec e-C
28
Pep,
TRACIE IC LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
DEPUTY CLERK 16 ° zit 2-
-
oF C I. a /0 (.0Pen a-acidiroCe ludaes5) 44
cot- ce. First
loPP-en5 -e oF Scitt,, yet) more
anY
i_xen-l-rs-)ed tor cuftIvkl>1 Pzeirctio1/4..trr - ILO NTS 0)-0-0,36e
r-or anter.,Pet/ s tettzi a_ ccalat 4-Aath also /actr-ed
Ytihnjed -t- tfriSetc -h ich LiAere., +1,15 Court
LueLS a isi-uended +he ?reli 4 0-1/ti art Aectri‘noe..
4,‘c coinPle -freiy Chased pen ekinoce hy 444-4
(4-his
oFfiesi5e oatu reef , --r4e.is 140/A-riho9 ehere Prcte5S
and Suit) jec-t- pv-7 a- 4-1- er urs#5elic,-hcor,
PO IP /1 --b5 4/7D /4 ti+40.-14-
IL
ea-ss-er i- +4a.. 24- 1141/a.cla. ti,Pre cot(
Prededenr i a-5 as redera.i cas-e ia.A/
recocti;a es •46eti- a. on"? So 60" cc+ frri
j Sc s'el-lon Can 13 .€ 6 penicphii- i=or4-1, 44-A-ic,
Em,ers„ E adiejew J'51- edur÷ a63 .78 1 ;;1/ 21).
A/50 , See C 14)(2-Sha-C C0 4'h+7 g arro ;ea P31 7c-c,
—21,e -Hian 1 one?" Pled /4-y "fa
+4 eS-e a..-i- ;in ir5el6 15 no* CL Ltia-
Orleen5e5
or: +/re r-coc4, /c o rd e a- C of Sqk ;en,-
met-4-ter asa ces 5e4 e4 cr-ea--teS cr- on
01:14-cn 5.e)
C 05 V SCr 5 Court- of A Pile/5 5' 4 c/e- D,e,t3) / 156
Cee us, 2-e+-er "3 to $2301 7 oq 1 C/iC'r:)-coa.)) . e-heee- mote
eeS k, c/ecl dentnn icor M P'S ;431'2‘.1°
IL
SubSeFcten* 0 F/2 enSre bnids-r- Ccr-// due 7/-e?
hi-h-e /am, watt re41-e oP /er, teat ere •
len a-hy Yte a-Conet Lie a-S 'Lc V/o/a---fria
he,'y cZet ceed as its hnusr r'eSoivect ;
ra,vor dr- -1-h-e Pe-t-1 4 1, 1"00ee C cadet , veeit
Itez5,41/ Sent -enCe _Lipp/1 c4, coice icy)
NiT5 ?taa,:34 6 ine1S-t- Pa.; 1 .dg-e vrit4 c
• ircz-nifie.5 20,1 71-.4a.:fr reit en eiliacti cNe *he fri krVed
(e)•-3 se tva-s. CA a.nged rotn 1:9,744e
For frict. oh --i- A:e re hy e ,y/..5109, „ 401, _•
te, eke- PrQC,e5 -S" cpic I 6 arcen z _ 57,istrit .
_ ... Q rnct iX For any amd cz-z/ c?"-: +.4e
.
1
Per kn-etri7•1 con eel_ rfrA t's
„ Otfre.
.(01 ke r--erre a te? V4z, er..te
414e S'ekt c-es . qn.P.Psed_. . •
1
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
3 THIS COURT HAS INHERENT AUTHORITY
MODIFY, SUSPEND OR OTHERWISE COR TO
4 IT'S OWN SENTENCES.
RECT
5 The inherent power to correct an
illegal sentence, like the inhere
nt power
6 to modify sentences based on
mistakes about a defendant's rec
ord, must
7 necessarily include the power
to entertain a motion to correc
t an illegal
8 sentence. Edwards v. State 112
Nev. 704, 918 P.2d 321, 1996 Nev
. LEXIS 84(1996)
9
rrx
10
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
11 This court may correct an illega
l sentence at any time. NRS 617
6.555
12 1:1:r
lit
13 CORRECTION REQUIRED WHEN DEFEND
ANT
SENTENCE IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY 'S
14 JURISDICTIONAL GUIDELINES. /
15 A motion to correct an illegal
sentence may challenge the facial
legality
16 of the sentence because either
"the district court was without
jurisdiction to
17 impose a sentence or the
sentence was imposed in excess
of the statutory
18 maximum." Edwards v. State
112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321
, 324 (1996).
19
CONCLUSION
20 As demonstrated above, the senten
ce imposed is an "illegal senten
ce" and
21 as such, the defendant pra
ys the court would grant relief
from the currently
22 imposed sentence and cor
rect the sentence accordingly.
23 Dated this ( 61- day of integ-
t 201 .
,
24
25 d
14 S e .s9ror
09 5-6 v4
Lovelock Correctional Center
26 1200 Prison Road
Lovelock, Nevada 89419
27 Defendant in pro se.
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERV
ICE EV MAIL
2 I do, certify that
I mailed a true an
d correct copy of
3 MOTION TO CORRECT the, foregoing
ILLEGAL SENTENCE
A-77 to the below list
4
5
day of ‘77/.e
via prison law libr
, 201
ary staff, pursuant
_ ed address on this
, by placing same in
the U.S. Mail
to Nevada Rules of
6 5(b): Civil Procedure
7
8 A/Ye d ourrty st5-r 4 nony,
9 I 5?-o liSovt
P41% rtivil tvip, 2
10 906o
11
12
Crilnete
t..-00
r‘,./X /a957%
13
Lovelock Correction
14 1200 Prison Road al Center
Lovelock, Nevada 89
15 Defendant in Pro Se 419
.
16 AFFIRMATION PURS
UANT TO MRS 2393
.030
The undersigned do
es hereby affirm
that the precedin
18 MODIFICATION OF SE g MOTION FOR
NTENCE filed in th
is case does not
19 security number of containS the soci
any person. • al
20 Dated this 51- day of J-14 ,1/2L
e. 201:L.
21 ,
22
23 rLoveig a W ireln 1045-6n
na %fa
lock Correc c--
ti
24 1200 Prison Road onal Center
Lovelock, Nevada 89
25 , Defendant in Pro Sc 419
.
26
27
28