ESQUIVEL v. STATE (2019)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.¹

In his motion, appellant argued that the Nevada Revised Statutes are invalid because they do not have an enactment clause, the commission charged with creating the revised statutes included members of the judiciary, and the laws authorizing the revised statutes were not passed in accordance with the Nevada Constitution and other laws. The district court did not err by denying appellant's motion because these claims did not address the facial validity of appellant's sentence and appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996) (discussing a motion to correct an illegal sentence).² Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This appeal has been submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument. NRAP 34(f)(3), (g); see also NRAP 31(d)(1); Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

2.   We note that the Statutes of Nevada contain the laws with the enacting clauses required by the constitution. The Nevada Revised Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated by the Legislative Counsel. NRS 220.120.