GLENFORD EDWARD ENNIS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Glenford Edward Ennis appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify sentence filed on July 6, 2023.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Monica Trujillo, Judge.

In his motion, Ennis appeared to claim that (1) he was wrongfully convicted of the crimes charged; (2) he diligently pursued his claims; (3) the district court failed to hold a competency hearing; (4) he did not confess to the crime; (5) trial counsel failed to explain to the jury that there was a language barrier; (6) trial counsel's decision to put him on the stand at trial was not tactical; (7) he was unaware of the victim's medical condition; (8) cumulative error violated his right to a fair trial; (9) the district court failed to investigate a known conflict of interest; (10) he did not receive an evidentiary hearing on a prior postconviction petition, and postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to request an evidentiary hearing; (11) his speedy trial rights were violated; (12) the district court abused its discretion by granting a motion to consolidate the charges; (13) he had legal standing; and (14) he had requested an interpreter before trial.

“[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). Without considering the merits of Ennis’ claims, we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify a sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Ennis’ motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ennis’ pleading was titled “motion to vacate a judgment of conviction.” No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, and this court would lack jurisdiction to consider such an appeal. Moreover, Ennis’ motion did not substantially follow the form required of a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See NRS 34.735. The district court construed Ennis’ motion as a motion to modify sentence, and Ennis does not challenge this determination on appeal.