Lepley (Brian) v. Director

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRIAN EUGENE LEPLEY, No. 71687 Appellant, vs. JAMES DZURENDA, DIRECTOR OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF FILED CORRECTIONS; AND DWIGHT JUL 1 2 2017 NEVEN, WARDEN, HIGH DESERT 19PzAaETh& BROWN STATE PRISON, Respondents.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.' Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge. Brian Lepley argues that he was improperly denied parole at his April 2016 parole hearing and that his rights were denied by retroactive application of NRS 213.1245 and NRS 213.1214. 2 We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition. Parole is an act of grace; a prisoner has no constitutional right to parole. See NRS 213.10705; Niergarth u. Warden, 105 Nev. 26, 28, 768 P.2d 882, 883 (1989). NRS 213.10705 explicitly states that "it is not intended that the establishment of standards relating [to parole] create

"Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See NRAP 34(0(3).

2In his informal brief, Lepley argues his rights were also violated by application of NRS 213.1243. However, because this claim was not raised in petition in the district court, we decline to consider it for the first instance in this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 1 ")--31001

any such right or interest in liberty or property or establish a basis for any cause of action against the State, its political subdivisions, agencies, boards, commissions, departments, officers or employees." NRS 213.1099 does not create a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Severance v. Armstrong, 96 Nev. 836, 839, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (1980). Lepley's claim regarding NRS 213.1245, regarding mandatory parole conditions for sex offenders, is premature as he has not been granted parole. Lepley further demonstrated no error with the application of NRS 213.1214. See Land v. Lawrence, 815 F. Supp. 1351, 1353 (D. Nev. 1993) (rejecting a prisoner's ex post facto challenge to the certification requirement of former NRS 200.375 (repealed and replaced by NRS 213.1214)). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

CS€A.1_ et t22 1 , J.

Parraguirre

Stiglich

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Brian Eugene Lepley Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 sU) 1947A