QUIWANECA SPIKES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND DISMISSING APPEAL IN PART

Quiwaneca L. Spikes appeals from a district court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on July 16, 2024, and a motion to amend judgment of conviction filed on July 30, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.

In her motion to correct an illegal sentence, Spikes claimed her presentence investigation report (PSI) was incorrect. 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). The district court may summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motion raises issues that fall outside of the very narrow scope of issues permissible in such a motion. Id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2. Without considering the merits of Spikes’ claim, we conclude it falls outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.¹ Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this motion.

To the extent Spikes appeals from the denial of her “motion to amend judgment of conviction,” no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order denying such a motion. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this portion of Spikes’ appeal and order it dismissed. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (stating “the right to appeal is statutory; where no statutory authority to appeal is granted, no right to appeal exists”). Accordingly,² we

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

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that a district court does not have authority to amend a prisoner's PSI post-sentencing. Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. 243, 249, 255 P.3d 209, 213 (2011). Thus, “any objections [to the accuracy of a PSI] must be resolved prior to sentencing, and, if not resolved in the defendant's favor, the objections must be raised on direct appeal.” Id. at 250, 255 P.3d at 214.

2.   To the extent Spikes raises arguments not specifically addressed herein, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given our disposition. Moreover, we decline to consider argument improperly presented in the notice of appeal. See NRAP 3(c) (providing the contents of a notice of appeal); NRAP 28(k) (permitting a pro se appellant to file an informal brief in which argument may be presented).