Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore,
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Next, appellant claimed that the State failed to produce
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his prior convictions were valid for
use in adjudication as a habitual criminal, the district court improperly
imposed the habitual criminal sentence for all of his convictions when only
one enhancement was permitted, his convictions arose out of only one
transaction, and the district court failed to make factual findings
regarding his sentence. These claims fell outside the narrow scope of
claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See id. Therefore,
without considering the merits of these claims, we conclude that the
district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering
r. 7 J.
Parraguirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Nathaniel Lee Morris
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I94Th