MACK v. STATE (2022)

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND DISMISSING IN PART

In his motion to modify sentence, Mack claimed that his counsel of record failed to appear for his sentencing hearing and that stand-in counsel did not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. Mack's claim 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) (stating “a motion to modify a sentence is limited in scope to sentences based on mistaken assumptions about a defendant's criminal record which work to the defendant's extreme detriment”). Therefore, without considering its merits, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

On appeal, Mack raises several arguments for the first time. Because Mack did not raise these claims in his motion below, we decline to consider them on appeal in the first instance. See McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 415-16, 990 P.2d 1263, 1275-76 (1999).

Mack also appeals from an order denying his motion for relief due to COVID-19. However, no statute or court rule permits an appeal from such an order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this portion of Mack's appeal and order it dismissed. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (“We have consistently held that the right to appeal is statutory; where no statutory authority to appeal is granted, no right to appeal exists.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED in part and the appeal DISMISSED in part.