GILL v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Gill claimed the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose his sentence based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Nevada Revised Statutes not being properly enacted, and the district attorney and the justice of the peace lacking authority to act because they lacked fidelity bonds. Gill failed to demonstrate that 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). He also failed to demonstrate his sentence was at variance with the controlling statute or that the court imposed a maximum sentence in excess of that allowed by statute. See id. Moreover, his claims did not implicate the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. 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)). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Gill's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.