PAMPLIN v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In both motions, Pamplin claimed his sentence was illegal and he was entitled to relief pursuant to Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 918 P.2d 321 (1996). Specifically, he claimed the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case because the deputy district attorney assigned to his case did not attend the preliminary hearing and he was improperly sentenced to a lengthier term than was permitted by the guilty plea agreement. These claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRS 171.010; United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[T]he term jurisdiction means ․ the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, Pamplin's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Therefore, without considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motions, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.