MARTINEZ v. STATE (2022)

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND DISMISSING IN PART

Motion to modify sentence

In his April 29, 2021, motion, Martinez requested modification of his sentence so that all of his prison terms would be concurrent. Martinez also appeared to request an order directing the prison to aggregate his terms. In addition, Martinez appeared to assert that he should have been subject to federal mandatory minimum sentences and that he should not be considered a career offender under federal law. Martinez'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.

Order transferring motion to a different judicial district

Martinez filed a motion on April 29, 2021, in which he challenged the calculation of his prison credits. Because Martinez challenged the computation of his time served, the district court construed the motion as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, pursuant to NRS 34.738(2), ordered it transferred to the First Judicial District Court for its review because Martinez was incarcerated in Carson City.

Only a final decision of the district court is appealable. See NRS 177.015(3); NRS 34.575(1). Because the district court's order transferring the motion did not dispose of Martinez's challenge to the computation of time served, the order is not a final order. See Sandstrom v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 657, 659, 119 P.3d 1250, 1252 (2005) (explaining a final order disposes of all issues and leaves nothing for future consideration). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and ORDER the appeal from the order to transfer DISMISSED.