HERRERA v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Herrera challenged his deadly weapon enhancement sentences. He claimed they were unconstitutional, applied as separate offenses, imposed without affording him due process, and not imposed by the jury. He also claimed they amount to double jeopardy and the 2007 amendments to the enhancement statute should be applied retroactively to his case.

Herrera's claims largely went to alleged errors in proceedings that occurred prior to the imposition of his sentences, and they 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). To the extent Herrera claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentences at issue, Herrera's claims did not implicate the jurisdiction of the courts. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; 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). Therefore, without considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.