MOE v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Moe claimed the district court incorrectly applied the law with regard to habitual criminal sentencing enhancements by failing to first sentence Moe on the underlying crime of burglary before imposing the enhancement. Moe's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of the claim raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Moe attempts to raise new argument in his informal brief on appeal regarding the integrity of an officer and the prosecutor who participated in his case, we decline to consider this argument on appeal in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999).