JONES v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Jones contends the sentencing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him because only a jury had statutory authority to sentence him. A motion to correct an illegal sentence is limited to claims that a sentence is “at variance with the controlling sentencing statute” or the sentencing court acted without jurisdiction. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 408, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Such a motion “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).

Jones’ claim was a challenge to the proceedings leading to the imposition of sentence and, accordingly, was outside the scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Moreover, as a separate and independent ground to deny relief, his claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. 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)). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.