HOLLAND v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

These are pro se appeals from district court orders denying appellant Peter Holland’s motions to modify his sentences.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.

In his motions filed on February 19, 2019, Holland asserted the district court relied on an error in the PSI about the date and discharge of his 2006 judgment of conviction. Having reviewed the records on appeal, we conclude Holland did not demonstrate that the sentencing 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). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Holland’s motions. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Having considered the pro se brief filed by Holland, we conclude that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). These appeals have been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the records. See NRAP 34(f)(3).