DOOLIN v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Glenn Miller Doolin appeals from an order of the district court denying a motion to modify sentence filed on October 10, 2019. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

Doolin contends the district court abused its discretion by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to modify the portion of Doolin's sentence that he had not yet begun to serve. In his motion below, he pointed to evidence showing long prison sentences for low-level offenses such as his are counterproductive and argued this evidence demonstrated his sentence was based on a materially untrue assumption. Doolin relied on Passanisi v. State, 108 Nev. 318, 831 P.2d 1371 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Harris v. State, 130 Nev. 435, 447, 329 P.3d 619, 627 (2014), and Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 918 P.2d 321 (1996), to support his arguments.

Regardless of whether the district court had jurisdiction to reach Doolin's substantive argument, Doolin is not entitled to relief. “[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, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324; accord Passanisi, 108 Nev. at 322-23, 831 P.2d at 1373-74. Doolin did not argue the challenged assumption was about his criminal record nor that it worked to his extreme detriment. Accordingly, Doolin's argument was outside the scope of a motion to modify a sentence. We therefore conclude the district court did not err by denying Doolin's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.