TERON FRANKLIN v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Teron Franklin appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence filed on June 27, 2024. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Jones, Chief Judge.

Franklin contends the district court erred by denying his motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Franklin claimed (1) the amended information did not charge a public offense; (2) the amended information failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court; (3) the judgment of conviction did not state a plea; (4) the judgment of conviction did not specify the terms of restitution; and (5) neither the amended information nor the judgment of conviction identified the category of the felony charged.

“[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). 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. “A motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Without considering the merits of Franklin's claims,¹ we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Franklin's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Franklin also contends the trial court relied on “incomplete and untrue facts” in sentencing him and that Nevada law now requires seven prior felony convictions before a defendant may be adjudicated a habitual criminal and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Franklin did not raise these claims in his motion below, and we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance. See State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293 n.3 (1989).