Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BRANDON MARCUS LEATH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Brandon Marcus Death appeals from an order of the district court denying a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence filed on January 25, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.
In his motion, Leath claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to properly handle plea negotiations and for failing to present his psychological evaluation at sentencing. “[A] motion to modify a sentence is limited in scope to sentences based on mistaken assumptions about a defendant's criminal record which work to the defendant's extreme detriment.” Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). A motion to correct an illegal sentence may only challenge the facial legality of the sentence; either the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence or the sentence was imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Id. However, such a motion cannot be used to challenge the validity of the conviction or sentence based on alleged errors that occurred at trial or sentencing. Id. The district court may summarily deny a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence if the motion raises issues that fall outside of the very narrow scope of issues permissible in such motions. Id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2.
Without considering the merits of heath's claims, we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying heath's motion, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.1
Gibbons, C.J.
Bulla, J.
Westbrook, J.
FOOTNOTES
1. We have reviewed all documents heath has filed in this matter, and we conclude no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent heath attempts to present claims or facts in his filings on appeal that were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we decline to consider them in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 86400-COA
Decided: October 11, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)