BANNING v. STATE (2021)

Court of Appeals of Nevada.

David Michael BANNING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 82777-COA

Decided: November 17, 2021

David Michael Banning Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney

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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network