JULIUS BRADFORD v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Julius Bradford appeals from an order of the district court denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on April 5, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

In his motion, Bradford claimed he was entitled to additional presentence credit pursuant to NRS 176.055. 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. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). The district court may summarily deny a motion to 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 Bradford's claim, we conclude it falls outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.¹ Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by summarily denying Bradford's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that a claim for additional presentence credit is a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence that must be raised either on direct appeal or in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in NRS Chapter 34. Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 1169 (2006).