TIFFANY v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Tiffany claimed that his five convictions for child abuse and neglect were invalid because the information did not fully apprise him of the nature of the charges, there was no evidence indicating the victims suffered pain or suffering, and NRS 200.508 was unconstitutional.

“[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. “A motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 Tiffany'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 Tiffany's motion,² and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   To the extent Tiffany raises claims on appeal that were not raised in his motion below, we decline to consider any such claims in the first instance. See State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989).