Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GEOFFREY LEE GROVE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Geoffrey Lee Grove appeals from a district court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on November 5, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.
In his motion, Grove sought to vacate his sentence because he alleged the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to impose it. Specifically, he claimed NRS 171.010 lacks any statutory source within the Statutes of Nevada because the statutory source was repealed by Senate Bill 2 in 1957 and the Nevada Supreme Court has previously erred by finding that the Nevada Revised Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of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 Grove 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, Grove'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 Grove's motion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.1
Bulla, C.J.
Gibbons, J.
Westbrook, J.
FOOTNOTES
1. The district court also denied the motion as procedurally barred. While this was error, see Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324 (holding that time constraints and procedural defaults do not apply to motions to correct an illegal sentence), we affirm because the district court also correctly found the claims raised in the motion were outside the scope of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 89881-COA
Decided: August 28, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)