FOLLOWILL v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In her motion Followill raised a number of claims challenging the validity of her conviction and sentence, and the parole proceedings, Followill's claims, however, fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence as they do not allege that her sentence was based on material mistakes about her criminal record that worked to her extreme detriment.² See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion.³

Having considered Followill's contentions and concluded that they do not warrant relief, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.⁴

FOOTNOTES

2.   Insofar as Followill argues that NRS 176.033(2) (2019) and Brown v. United States, CR ELH-00-0100, 2020 WL 1248950 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2020), warrant modification of her sentence, she is mistaken. Cf. 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 633, §§ 10.5, 137, at 4381-82, 4488 (amending NRS 176.033 to remove the provision previously set forth at NRS 176.033(2)); Board of Parole Comm'rs v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 135 Nev. 398, 401-02, 451 P.3d 73, 77 (2019) (providing that the version of NRS 176.033 in effect when the motion is filed applies). NRS 176.033(2) permitted the Board of Parole Commissioners to petition for relief for a parolee. Followill is not on parole, and NRS 176.033(2) does not provide a basis for her to petition for relief. Brown is an unpublished case from a different jurisdiction that concerned a request for relief on the basis of federal sentencing guidelines; the case does not apply Nevada law, and the federal guidelines do not apply to Followill.

3.   Followill has also filed a “Motion for Review Emergency Motion.” Insofar as Followill requests some form of release from incarceration on the basis of uncertain circumstances regarding her son's housing, she has not stated a basis on which relief may be granted. Insofar as her motion seeks immediate review of this appeal, this order resolves all outstanding issues, and the request is now moot. Cf. NRAP 27(e) (stating rules governing requests for emergency or expedited relief).

4.   The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.