SHAWN v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Shawn appears to argue that the district court erred by denying his motions because his convictions and sentences in all three cases are invalid under the Double Jeopardy Clause and barred as res judicata. 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). 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.

Shawn's claims challenge the validity of his judgments of conviction. Without considering the merits of Shawn's claims, we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Shawn's motions.

On appeal, Shawn also argues that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) his sentence is unconstitutional due to juror misconduct, and (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial. These claims were not raised in Shawn's motions below, and we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance. See State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We have reviewed all documents that Shawn has submitted in these matters, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted.