Opinion
86814-COA
05-01-2024
NAPOLEON SEPULVEDA OLIVERA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND DISMISSING IN PART
Napoleon Sepulveda Olivera appeals from district court orders denying a "motion to correct illegal sentence by fraudulent contract, charging document, judgment of conviction and plea deals, through recission" filed on January 25, 2023, and a "motion for transcripts at state expense" filed on June 20, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Danielle K. Pieper, Judge.
Motion to correct an illegal sentence
Olivera claimed Senate Bill 182 (S.B. 182), which was enacted in 1951 and created a commission for revision and compilation of Nevada laws, was unconstitutional because it allowed Nevada Supreme Court justices to sit on the commission. Olivera further claimed that "all acts derived from S.B. 182," such as charging documents, judgments of conviction, and plea deals, hold no authority because S.B. 182 is unconstitutional. Olivera appears to have claimed that his judgment of conviction and plea agreement were defective and should be rescinded due to fraudulent inducement.
See 1951 Nev. Stat., ch. 304, §§ 1-17, at 470-72.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence may only challenge the facial legality of the sentence: either the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence or the sentence was imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). And such a motion "presupposes a valid conviction." Id. (quotation marks omitted). Olivera;s claims challenged the validity of his conviction. Therefore, Olivera's claims are outside the scope of claims allowed in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and without considering the merits of his claims, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Olivera's motion.
On appeal, Olivera appears to contend that the district court committed various crimes in denying his motion and that the State committed various crimes in securing his plea and/or in opposing his motion. Olivera does not cogently argue these claims for relief; therefore, we decline to consider them. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) (stating this court need not consider an argument that is not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority).
Motion for transcripts
The notice of appeal fails to identify any judgments of the district court. Moreover, it does not appear from the district court docket sheet and minute entries that the district court entered any appealable order. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this portion of Olivera's appeal and order it dismissed. Accordingly, we i ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and the appeal DISMISSED IN PART.
Gibbons, C.J., Bulla J., Westbrook J.
Hon. Danielle K. Pieper, District Judge