demonstrate that his sentence was facially illegal or that the district court
lacked jurisdiction. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d
321, 324 (1996). The absence of an original judgment of conviction did not
deprive the district court of jurisdiction to impose• a sentence of
imprisonment and file an amended judgment of conviction. See Miller v.
Hayes, 95 Nev. 927, 929, 604 P.2d 117, 118 (1979) (stating that a district
court's oral pronouncement is not final and may be modified before a
written order is filed). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did
not err in denying appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.
In his motion to modify sentence, filed on March 4, 2014,
appellant claimed that the district court improperly relied on information
in the presentence investigation report and on the victim's testimony at
sentencing, which indicated that appellant had committed the offense of
sexual assault rather than attempted sexual assault, which was the
offense to which he pleaded guilty. Appellant also contended that the
victim's testimony at sentencing was highly suspect and that the district
court's statements during the probation revocation hearing indicated that
the district court did not understand the facts of the offense. Appellant
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
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947T cep.
(1996). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying appellant's motion to modify. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
gisLA
J.
Hardesty
J.
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Brandyn William Gayler
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We 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
3
(0) 1947A 4Vg4m