MITCHELL v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mitchell argues the district court erred by denying his May 14, 2021, motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, Mitchell requested a new sentencing hearing in this matter and in a separate, unrelated criminal case. Mitchell asserted that the sentences in both cases should have been imposed concurrently and contended that he should have been sentenced to a shorter term in the separate, unrelated case.

Mitchell's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify 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 without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.