PAIGE III v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Paige claimed he was entitled to additional presentence credits. Paige's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal 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. Further, we decline to consider arguments Paige raises for the first time in his informal brief on appeal. See Rimer v. State, 131 Nev. 307, 328 n.3, 351 P.3d 697, 713 n.3 (2015). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.