KEDRIA DESHAWN WATSON v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Kedria Deshawn Watson appeals from an order of the district court denying a “motion to reduce sentence” filed on October 4, 2022. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacqueline M. Bluth, Judge.

In her motion, Watson claimed that insufficient evidence supported her conviction of child abuse and neglect with substantial bodily harm. She also claimed that her convictions for both the child abuse and for second-degree murder violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because they arose from the same course of conduct.

As a general rule, the district court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentence after the defendant has begun serving it. Staley v. State, 106 Nev. 75, 79, 787 P.2d 396, 398 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Hodges v. State, 119 Nev. 479, 484, 78 P.3d 67, 70 (2003). There are three exceptions to this rule. First, for reasons of due process, a district court may “correct, vacate or modify a sentence that is based on a materially untrue assumption or mistake of fact that has worked to the extreme detriment of the defendant, but only if the mistaken sentence is the result of the sentencing judge's misapprehension of a defendant's criminal record.” Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 707, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Second, a district court has the inherent authority to correct a facially illegal sentence. Id. at 707-08, 918 P.2d at 324; see also NRS 176.555. And third, the district court may correct clerical mistakes in judgments at any time. NRS 176.565.

Watson failed to demonstrate that the district court relied upon mistaken assumptions about her criminal record, her sentence is facially illegal, or the judgment of conviction contains a clerical error. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Watson's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.