ANGULO v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Angulo claimed his sentence was based on a mistaken assumption that worked against him because the manner in which he was returned to Nevada from California was improper. “[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). A motion to correct an illegal sentence may only challenge the facial legality of the sentence: either the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence or the sentence was imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Id.

Without considering the merits of Angulo's claim, we conclude it falls outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Angulo's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.