EDWARDS v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Edwards argues the district court erred by denying his April 27, 2021, motion. In his motion, Edwards first argued that the sentencing court erred by adjudicating him a habitual criminal because two of the prior convictions did not list the name of the attorney, two of the prior convictions were prosecuted in the same information, and one of the prior convictions was not a felony in Nevada. The Nevada Supreme Court has already reviewed these issues and concluded that Edwards was not entitled to relief. See Edwards v. State, No. 76590, 2019 WL 1255196 (Nev. Mar. 15, 2019) (Order of Affirmance). The doctrine of the law of the case prevents further litigation of these issues and “cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon the previous proceedings.” Hall u. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying these claims.

Second, Edwards claimed that the trial-level court erred by failing to properly consider a motion to withdraw guilty plea and by refusing to permit him to make an argument at the sentencing hearing. Edwards also contended the State breached the guilty plea agreement and improperly failed to file transcripts from the sentencing hearings for his prior felony convictions. These claims 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, 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.   Edwards appeal's to argue on appeal that his sentence in a separate criminal matter is too long. Edwards did not raise this claim in his motion, and we decline to consider it on appeal in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999).