ANTHONY PERRY OLIVER v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND DISMISSING IN PART

Anthony Perry Oliver appeals from a district court order denying a motion to re-open and reproduce all documents filed on July 16, 2025; a “motion for all circuits” regarding timeframes on filings, filed on July 24, 2025; and a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed on July 30, 2025. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michelle Leavitt, Judge.

In his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Oliver appeared to claim his sentence is illegal because he has one prison conviction with two felony convictions. He asked the district court to adjudicate him pursuant to the small habitual statute and to impose a prison sentence of 5 to 20 years. 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 supreme court considered and rejected a nearly identical claim on direct appeal from Oliver's judgment of conviction. See Oliver v. State, Docket No. 51976 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding, June 3, 2009). Specifically, the supreme court considered Oliver's claim that “he has only two prior felony convictions” and determined that “[t]he amended information lists three prior felony convictions, and the sentencing hearing transcript reflects that the State provided the district court with certified judgments of conviction for three prior felonies.” Id. at *4. The doctrine of the law of the case prevents further litigation of this issue. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 315-16, 535 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1975). Therefore, Oliver has not shown that his sentence is facially illegal or that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him, and we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Oliver also appears to appeal from the denial of his motion to re-open and reproduce all documents and his “motion for all circuits” regarding timeframes on filings. Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order denying those motions, we lack jurisdiction over that portion of Oliver's appeal and order the appeal dismissed in part. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

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

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.