SANTISTEVAN v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motions, Santistevan raised claims challenging the validity of his judgment of conviction and sentence. Santistevan did not allege specific facts demonstrating the district court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Santistevan also failed to allege specific facts demonstrating that his sentence was facially illegal or the district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Santistevan's motions. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In his informal brief on appeal, Santistevan argues for the first time that the State sought a significant term of imprisonment based on Santistevan's participation in an offense in another jurisdiction and that the sentencing court failed to consider the sentencing recommendations made in the presentence investigation report. We decline to consider new argument on appeal. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999).