SUTTON v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Sutton claimed the district court erred by imposing a sentence for the deadly weapon enhancement that was separate and equal from his sentence for his primary offense. Sutton previously raised this claim, and it was rejected by the Nevada Supreme Court. See Sutton v. State, Docket No. 59378 (Order of Affirmance, June 14, 2012). Thus, this claim was barred by the doctrine of law of the case, which cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Sutton's claim.

On appeal, Sutton claims the district court erred by holding a hearing regarding his motion prior to his having received the State's response to his motion. Further, he claims the district court never provided him with a copy of the order denying his motion. Sutton fails to demonstrate how these alleged errors affected the district court's decision or his ability to challenge the district court's order on appeal. See NRS 178.598 (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”). Therefore, Sutton fails to demonstrate he is entitled to relief based on these claims. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.