HICKMAN v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hickman argues the district court erred by denying his motion to modify and/or correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Hickman claimed the recent amendments to the habitual criminal statute, NRS 207.010, should be applied to him retroactively. Hickman's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of Hickman's claim, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.