CHURCH v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Church claimed that one of the convictions used to qualify him for habitual criminal treatment was not entered until after the commission of the primary offenses. A defendant may seek to modify his sentence where the sentence was based on mistaken assumptions about the defendant's criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996).

The indictment in the instant case alleged that Church committed the primary offenses on December 22, 2005, and March 8, 2006. In its notice of intent to seek habitual criminal treatment, filed on June 6, 2006, the State listed four prior felony convictions in support of its intent to enhance Church's punishment, including a 2005 conviction for robbery. Church alleged a judgment of conviction was not entered for that conviction until after the commission of the primary offenses, in violation of Brown v. State, 97 Nev. 101, 102, 624 P.2d 1005, 1006 (1981) (“All prior convictions used to enhance a sentence must have preceded the primary offense.”). However, the judgment of conviction was entered on November 8, 2005. Because Church's prior robbery conviction preceded the primary offenses it was used to enhance, Church fails to establish the sentencing court relied upon any alleged errors in his criminal history that worked to his extreme detriment Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.