HANKINS v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Thurman Lee Hankins appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify sentence filed on March 14, 2019. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge.

In his motion below, Hankins alleged his sentence was based upon assumptions founded upon inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report (PSI) and/or untrue statements made by the prosecutor at sentencing. Hankins, however, did not identify any inaccuracies in the PSI or untrue statements that were made by the prosecutor. He asked the district court to impose his sentences to run concurrently.

The district court denied the motion on the basis that Hankins failed to provide a factual basis upon which relief could be granted. We conclude the district court did not err by denying Hankins motion. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996); see generally Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding a person seeking postconviction relief is not entitled to relief on claims unsupported by specific factual allegations). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We have reviewed all documents Hankins has filed in this matter, and we conclude no relief based upon those documents is warranted. To the extent Hankins has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we decline to consider them in the first instance.