URBAN v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Urban argues that the district court erred by denying his motion. In his September 15, 2020, motion, Urban claimed that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because Nevada was not properly admitted into the United States and therefore its laws are invalid. Urban also contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because the Nevada Revised Statutes were not properly enacted.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may only challenge the facial legality of the sentence. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). “An illegal sentence” is “one at variance with the controlling sentencing statute, or illegal in the sense that the court goes beyond its authority by acting without jurisdiction or imposing a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum provided.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “A motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Urbans claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence because they did not implicate the jurisdiction of the district court, see Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRS 171.010; United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[T]he term jurisdiction means ․ the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and his 16-to-40-month prison sentence is facially legal, see NRS 200.481(2)(f). Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying his motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.