DUNCKLEY v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Dunckley claimed the amended information was defective because the State did not obtain a written report from the victim before her 21st birthday and the State did not generate a police report. Dunckley further claimed the statute of limitations had expired as a result and the district court did not obtain jurisdiction over him.

Dunckley'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). Criminal statutes of limitation are not jurisdictional; they are affirmative defenses that must be raised in the trial court. Hubbard v. State, 112 Nev. 946, 948, 920 P.2d 991, 993 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying the motion.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court erred by denying Dunckley's motion on the merits. We nevertheless affirm because it reached the correct conclusion. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).