STEWART v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Stewart challenged the validity of the Nevada Revised Statutes, claimed the lower courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and alleged officials associated with his case lacked performance bonds. Stewart also alleged he was racially profiled, claimed he was entitled to a trial where he could have faced his accuser, claimed he was due all the privileges and immunities due a secured party creditor, and claimed he was entitled to diplomatic immunity at the time of his arrest.

Stewart did not allege his sentence was facially illegal or the result of a mistaken assumption regarding his criminal record, and his claims did not implicate the court's 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 Stewart's motion. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.