SMITH (ARINZA) v. STATE

140 Nev., Advance Opinion g
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ARINZA SMITH, No. 88017-COA
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
Respondent.
DEC 19 20

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ
of mandamus or prohibition filed on September 8, 2023. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.
Affirmed.

Arinza Smith, Indian Springs,
in Pro Se.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, and Elsa Felgar, Deputy Attorney
General, Carson City; Steven B. Wolfson, District Attorney, and Alexander
G. Chen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County,
for Respondent.

BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, GIBBONS, C.J., and BULLA and
WESTBROOK, JJ.

COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA riy7
(0) 1947B
OPINION'

PER CURIAM:
In his petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, appellant
Arinza Smith claimed Senate Bill (S.B.) 4132 revised the method for
determining credits to reduce an offender's sentence and stated he was
electing to be subjected to the revised method. The district court concluded
that Smith was challenging the computation of time he had served and
denied the petition because such a challenge had to be raised in a
postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court also
determined that S.B. 413 was not in effect for computation purposes until
July 1, 2025. On appeal, Smith contends the district court erred by denying
his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station, NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or
,
capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v.
Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of
mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.3 NRS 34.170.

1We originally resolved this appeal on October 9, 2024, in an
unpublished order. The Office of the Attorney General filed a motion to
publish the order as an opinion. Cause appearing, the motion is granted.
See NRAP 36(e). We now issue this opinion in place of the order.

2 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 394, at 2308-18.

3Although Smith alternatively sought a writ of prohibition, he does
not provide cogent argument regarding that relief. Therefore, we need not
consider it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
COURT OF APPEALS
OF
N EVADA
2
(0) 1947B .40).
In June 2023, the Nevada Legislature passed S.B. 413, which
provides a revised method for determining credits to reduce the sentence
of an offender." 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 394, at 2309. This revised method will
apply "to an offender sentenced to prison for a crime committed: (1) on or
after July 1, 2025; or (2) before July 1, 2025, if the offender elects to be
subject to the revised method." Id. Smith contends that a writ of
mandamus was the proper remedy because he did •not ask for "time
computation" such that his claim should have been brought in a
postconviction habeas petition pursuant to NRS Chapter 34; rather, he
sought a "revised method of sentencing." We reject this claim.
A postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus lijs the
only remedy available to an incarcerated person to challenge the
computation of time that the person has served pursuant to a judgment of
conviction, after all available administrative remedies have been
exhausted." NRS 34.724(2)(c) (emphasis added). S.B. 413 does not provide
a "revised method of sentencing." It provides inmates who were sentenced
to prison for a crime committed before July 1, 2025, with an alternative
method for determining good time credits. See 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 394, § 1,
at 2310-11. And a postconviction habeas petition challenging the
computation of time served may dispute the application of credits toward
an inmate's sentence, see Williams v. Nev., Dep't of Corr., 133 Nev. 594, 596,
402 P.3d 1260, 1262 (2017), as well as the method by which an inmate's
sentence is calculated, cf. Johnson v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 105 Nev.
314, 316, 774 P.2d 1047, 1049 (1989) (affirming the district court's denial of
a postconviction habeas petition in part because "when appellant expired
his sentences, any question as to the method of computing those sentences
was rendered moot").

COURT OF APPEALS
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947B
Therefore, Smith's claim seeking the application of a revised
method for determining good time credits was a challenge to the
computation of time served and thus had to be made in a postconviction
habeas petition pursuant to NRS Chapter 34. Accordingly, Smith had a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by means
of filing such a petition, and a writ of mandamus was inappropriate.
Further, we conclude that the district court correctly
determined that S.B. 413 was not yet in effect for the purposes of the relief
sought. Although the provisions of S.B. 413 revising the method for
determining credits became effective upon passage and approval "for the
purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any other preparatory
administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of this
act," those provisions become effective on July 1, 2025, "for all other
purposes." 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 394, § 11, at 2318. As a result, the relief
Smith seeks is not yet available. Therefore, Smith failed to demonstrate
that mandamus relief was warranted to compel a public officer to perform
an act that the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office or
that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying his
requested relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying
Smith's petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.4

1,frray.0-/
%4 , C.J.
Gi bons V

i fo
roownsfeamarafte

Westbrook
J.
Bulla

4Insofar as Smith raises arguments that are not specifically
addressed in this opinion, we have considered the same and conclude that
they do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the
COURT OF APPEALS disposition of this appeal.
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 194713