GRIMES v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Grimes claimed that his convictions violated his right against double jeopardy. Grimes’ claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). 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.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Grimes attempts to present new claims on appeal, we decline to consider them in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 416, 990 P.2d 1263, 1276 (1999).