HOLLAND v. STATE (2020)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Peter Ryan HOLLAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Peter Ryan Holland, Appellant, v. The State of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 79021, No. 79022

Decided: April 16, 2020

Peter Ryan Holland Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney

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).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network