JAY v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Jay claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose his sentence because Nevada falls under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Nevada Revised Statutes were not properly enacted. He also claimed all land belongs to the indigenous tribes and all laws of the State were repealed in 1963. On appeal, Jay also claims there was an issue with a CUSIP bond and the Vatican created a legal fiction, through the Uniform Probate Code, to exclude the Sovereign People.

Jay failed to demonstrate that his sentence was facially illegal or the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). He did not allege his sentence was facially illegal, and his claims did not implicate the courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRS 171.010; Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 183, 251 P.3d 163, 168 (2011) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to render a judgment in a particular category of case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Jay's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.