LEWIS v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Lewis claims the district court erred in denying his motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence because (1) the Nevada Department of Corrections has incorrectly calculated his parole eligibility date given apparent confusion regarding the sentencing structure in his amended judgment of conviction; (2) a detective provided allegedly false testimony at Lewis’ trial; (3) Lewis’ presentence investigation report included this false testimony and thereby affected the district court's sentencing determinations; and (4) a victim allegedly recanted her testimony.

“[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. 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.

Without considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, 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 Lewis’ motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.