HOWELL v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Dakota Wenford Howell appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence filed on December 9, 2019. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge.

In his motion, Howell claimed the lack of a transcript of his December 2018 arraignment hearing divested the district court of jurisdiction over his case and resulted in the district court relying on “false information” regarding his criminal history. Howell's claim did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRS 171.010; see also 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)). Further, Howell's claim did not demonstrate the sentencing court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Howell's motion. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996).

To the extent Howell attempts to raise several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his informal brief on appeal, we decline to consider these arguments as they were not raised in the district court in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We have reviewed all documents Howell has filed in this matter, and we conclude no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent Howell attempts 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.