CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PATTERSON v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Christopher Michael Patterson appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify his sentence filed on April 17, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jessica K. Peterson, Judge.

In his motion, Patterson claimed that (1) the State failed to prove any element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the State introduced inadmissible and misleading evidence about firearm possession at trial, (3) the State withheld exculpatory evidence, (4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, (5) the prosecution improperly joined cases, (6) counsel performed ineffectively at trial and sentencing, (7) the deadly weapon enhancement was unconstitutional and not supported by the evidence at trial, (8) a psychological examination was not conducted prior to sentencing, and (9) the presentence investigation report (PSI) incorrectly stated that Patterson did not make a statement to the Division of Parole and Probation.

“[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). The district court may summarily deny a motion to modify a sentence if the motion raises issues that fall outside of the very narrow scope of issues permissible in such a motion. Id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2.

Patterson's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify a sentence. Id. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Accordingly, without considering the merits of these claims, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Patterson s motion. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Patterson raises new arguments in his informal brief on appeal, we decline to consider them in the first instance. See State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989). To the extent Patterson argues the district court erred in denying his motion to appoint counsel, we discern no abuse of discretion.