timeframe for the offenses, the district court impermissibly modified the
murder charge, and the judgment of conviction did not contain statutory
subsections for the offenses. To the extent that appellant claimed that his
sentence should be modified, he failed to demonstrate that the district
court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that
worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704,
708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Appellant also failed to demonstrate that
his sentence was facially illegal or that the district court lacked
jurisdiction. See id. Appellant's claims regarding the validity of his
judgment of conviction fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible
in a motion to modify or correct a sentence. See id. We therefore conclude
that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motions.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
/ J.
H ardesty
P C0.4.0$1
Parraguirre
2 We 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.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
mrf-wir,t 5e,...vA -
cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge
Steven Floyd Voss
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A