MORAGA v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Moraga claimed the State did not provide sufficient proof of his prior convictions to support habitual criminal adjudication. The Nevada Supreme Court has previously concluded that the State produced proper proof of Moraga's prior convictions and that the sentencing court properly considered Moraga's prior convictions for purposes of habitual criminal adjudication. See Moraga v. State, Docket No. 22901 (Order Dismissing Appeal, October 4, 1995). The doctrine of law of the case prevents further litigation of this claim and “cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument.” Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Moraga also claimed the State failed to file notice of its intent to seek habitual offender treatment. Moraga's claim 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, without considering the merits of this claim, we conclude the district court did not err by denying it.

On appeal, Moraga claims his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and he challenges this court's ruling in Moraga v. State, No. 83179-COA, 2021 WL 6143698 (Nev. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2021) (Order of Affirmance). These claims were not raised in Moraga's motion, and we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance. See Rimer v. State, 131 Nev. 307, 328 n.3, 351 P.3d 697, 713 n.3 (2015).

For the foregoing reasons, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.