JOHNSON v. NAJERA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Johnson claimed that he was challenging the legality of his sentence based on Senate Bill (S.B.) 182 (1951). 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). And such a motion “presupposes a valid conviction.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Although Johnson claimed in his motion that he was only challenging the legality of his sentence, he argued that S.B. 182 improperly appointed supreme court justices to the statute revision commission and, therefore, his charging document, judgment of conviction, and plea deal are invalid. Because his argument goes to the validity of his conviction, Johnson's claim is outside the scope of claims allowed in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and without considering the merits of his claims, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Johnson's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.