STANLEY v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Stanley argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Stanley claimed the sentencing court violated his equal protection rights by sentencing him pursuant to the habitual criminal enhancement without first imposing sentence for his primary offenses. Stanley's claim 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 the claim 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.   We conclude the district court did not err by denying Stanley's motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion to stop restitution.