BANNING v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Banning claimed that he was entitled to additional presentence credits. “[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). Without considering the merit of Banning's claim, we conclude it falls outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Banning's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.