SHANE v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Shane claimed his presentence investigation report contained inaccurate information regarding his substance abuse history and whether he was under the influence of substances at the time of the instant offense. He claimed the error prevented him from seeking a sentence that would provide an opportunity for rehabilitation.

“[A] motion to modify a sentence is limited in scope to sentences based on mistaken assumptions about a defendant's criminal record which work to the defendant's extreme detriment.” Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996) (emphasis added). Shane's claim did not touch on his criminal record and was thus outside the scope of a motion for modification of sentence. Accordingly, without considering the merits of Shane's claim, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his motion,¹ and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court improperly addressed Shane's claims on the merits. See id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2. We nevertheless affirm the district court's decision for the reasons stated above. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason).