Opinion ID: 2621237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district judge had jurisdiction to consider appellant's habeas petition

Text: In supplemental points and authorities, Colwell claims that District Judge Donald M. Mosley lacked jurisdiction to consider Colwell's habeas petition. He cites NRS 34.820(3), which provides: If the petitioner has previously filed a petition for relief or for a stay of the execution in the same court, the petition must be assigned to the judge or justice who considered the previous matter. The record indicates that on September 18, 1995, District Judge Gene T. Porter granted Colwell's motion for a stay of execution following Colwell's conviction and pending his direct appeal. Colwell therefore argues that MRS 34.820 required Judge Porter to hear his instant petition. Colwell failed to raise this claim with the district court, and we need not address it absent a showing of cause for the failure and prejudice. [3] On the other hand, subject-matter jurisdiction is not waivable, and a court's lack of such jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal. [4] But even assuming that NRS 34.820(3) was violated here, Colwell has cited no authority for concluding that such a violation deprives a district judge of subject-matter jurisdiction, and we reject that proposition. We also conclude that he has not shown cause for failing to raise this claim below or that he was prejudiced.