CANO v. STATE (2019)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion to modify sentence.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge.

In his motion, appellant claimed that the presentence investigation report erroneously suggested his crime involved violence and the amended judgment of conviction incorrectly states the minimum term to be 19 months. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion because appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Further, appellant's claim regarding the minimum term set forth in the amended judgment of conviction fell outside the scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. Id. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See NRAP 34(f)(3).