HOWARD v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Howard claimed his sentence should be modified because the supplemental presentence investigation report (PSI) contained errors, the prosecutor presented untrue assumptions about the instant offense, and the sentencing court did not preside over the trial. “[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).

Here, Howard's alleged PSI errors were fully discussed during the sentencing hearing. He has not demonstrated that his sentence was based on mistaken assumptions about his criminal record. And his remaining claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims that may be raised in a motion to modify a sentence. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.