HERMANSKI v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hermanski claimed his habitual felon enhancements were at variance with the controlling sentencing statute because the second amended judgment of conviction does not reflect the sentencing court's adjudication of guilt but rather references only the jury's finding of guilt. Hermanski failed to demonstrate his sentence was facially illegal or the district court lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Hermanski's motion, see Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996), and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.