CAIN v. STATE (2023)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his motion, Cain sought modification of his sentence because he has never been a Nevada resident and his continued incarceration is a severe hardship on his ill sister who needs his care. These claims were outside the scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of these claims, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Cain's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Cain raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given our disposition of this appeal.