THOMAS EDWIN BRANT v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Thomas Edwin Brant appeals from a district court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on January 25, 2024. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Jones, Chief Judge.

In his motion, Brant claimed Senate Bill 182, which was enacted in 1951 and created a commission for revision and compilation of Nevada laws,¹ was unconstitutional because Nevada Supreme Court justices sat on the commission and, as a result, the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose his sentence. 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. 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.

Although Brant purported to challenge the district court's jurisdiction only insofar as it pertained to his sentencing, his arguments implicated the validity of his conviction. Therefore, Brant's claim was outside the scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and without considering the merits of any claim raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Brant's motion.

On appeal, Brant argues that the prosecutor and the district court judge criminally conspired because the State submitted a fraudulent instrument to the court. Brant fails to cogently argue this claim on appeal. Therefore, we need not consider it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.²

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See 1951 Nev. Stat., ch. 304, §§ 1-17, at 470-72.

2.   To the extent Brant raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief.