WOMACK v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Womack claimed the recent amendments to the habitual criminal statute should be applied to him retroactively. Womack's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). On appeal, Womack argues the district court violated his right to due process because the district court's order was based on the State's untimely filed pleading and he was deprived of his ability to file a reply. As Womack's claim in his motion was outside the scope of permissible claims, Womack has not demonstrated any alleged procedural error affected his substantial rights. See NRS 178.598. Therefore, without considering the merits of the claim raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.