RILEY v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Riley's sole argument on appeal is that the district court lacked authority to sentence him under the habitual criminal statute because the district court erroneously allowed the State to amend the information to add a count of habitual criminality after a verdict had been reached in his case. Riley did not raise this claim in his motion below, and we decline to consider it 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.