From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanley v. State

Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Jan 26, 2022
502 P.3d 734 (Nev. App. 2022)

Opinion

No. 83420-COA

01-26-2022

Oscar Art STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

Oscar Art Stanley Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney


Oscar Art Stanley

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Stanley argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Stanley claimed the sentencing court violated his equal protection rights by sentencing him pursuant to the habitual criminal enhancement without first imposing sentence for his primary offenses. Stanley's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without considering the merits of the claim raised in the motion, we conclude the district court did not err by denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

We conclude the district court did not err by denying Stanley's motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion to stop restitution.


Summaries of

Stanley v. State

Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Jan 26, 2022
502 P.3d 734 (Nev. App. 2022)
Case details for

Stanley v. State

Case Details

Full title:Oscar Art STANLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada.

Date published: Jan 26, 2022

Citations

502 P.3d 734 (Nev. App. 2022)