NICK AUSTIN YOUNG v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Nick Austin Young appeals from a district court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on October 29, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nadia Krall, Judge.

In his motion, Young sought to vacate his sentence because he alleged the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to impose it. Young claimed that the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and specifically NRS 171.010, lack any statutory source within the Statutes of Nevada because the statutory sources were repealed by Senate Bill 2 in 1957 and that the Nevada Supreme Court has previously erred by finding that the NRS are prima facie evidence of the laws of Nevada.

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).

Although Young purports to challenge the district court's jurisdiction only insofar as it pertains to his sentencing, his arguments implicate the validity of Nevada's entire statutory scheme and, thus, the validity of his conviction. Therefore, Young's claims are outside the scope of claims allowed in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and without considering the merits of his claims, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Young's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.