Opinion
No. 56965.
02-09-2011
Maiga HRALIMA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Maiga Hralima Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney
Maiga Hralima
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a “motion to vacate a facially illegal sentence pursuant to NRS 176.555.” Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome Polaha, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
In his motion, filed on August 16, 2010, appellant claimed that his sentence should be vacated because (1) the State violated his right to due process, (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction because he was not timely arraigned in justice court, (3) appellant was not competent when he entered his plea, (4) appellant's right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated, and (5) statements and recommendations in the PSI were incorrect. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his sentence was facially illegal and that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). To the extent that appellant claimed that his sentence should be modified based on incorrect statements in the PSI, appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court relied on mistaken assumptions regarding his criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See id. Finally, to the extent that appellant raised claims in his motion that have previously been considered and rejected, the doctrine of law of the case prevents further litigation of the underlying claims and cannot be avoided by a more detailed and precisely focused argument. See Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.