ROSKY v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Rosky argues the district court erred by denying his motion to modify sentence because the district court did not specifically address each claim in his motion. In his motion, Rosky argued he was denied due process because the language contained in the grand jury indictment and jury instructions did not directly match the language contained on the verdict form. Because Rosky did not allege that a mistaken assumption about his criminal record worked to his extreme detriment, his claims were outside the narrow scope of a motion for modification of sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without deciding on the merits of any claims raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Rosky's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.