SARNOWSKI v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Sarnowski claimed the district court was without jurisdiction to impose any sentence because NRS 171.010 was improperly amended without legislative authority. A motion to correct an illegal sentence may only challenge the facial legality of the sentence: either the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence or the sentence was imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996).

Sarnowski's claim did not implicate the district court's jurisdiction. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (“[T]he term jurisdiction means ․ the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Sarnowski's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.