FRANCISCO ENRIQUE VIDAL v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Francisco Enrique Vidal appeals from a district court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on August 27, 2025, and supplement. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Eric Johnson, Judge.

In his motion, Vidal claimed that he was charged and convicted under NRS 200.508 for a crime that did not exist: child abuse, neglect, or endangerment resulting in death. Vidal claimed that, because the crime did not exist, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a sentence and his sentence was facially illegal. 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). “A motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although Vidal purports to challenge the trial court's jurisdiction to impose sentence, his argument challenges alleged errors that occurred prior to the imposition of sentence and which implicate the validity of his conviction. Thus, without considering the merits of Vidal's claim, we conclude it falls outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Vidal's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.