CLARKE v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Clarke claimed his judgment of conviction was void. Clarke's claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal 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. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.