From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tingley v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2015
No. 66582 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)

Opinion

No. 66582

02-04-2015

ADAM WYNN TINGLEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify sentence. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome Polaha, Judge.

On appeal from the denial of his motion to modify sentence filed on December 27, 2013, and supplemental motion to modify filed on August 27, 2014, appellant claims that the district court erred by denying his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing regarding whether the errors in the presentence investigation report (PSI) would have made a difference at sentencing. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the district 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). In fact, appellant conceded below that the errors in the PSI did not work to his extreme detriment. Even if there were errors in the PSI, appellant still had a lengthy criminal history and he received a fairly lenient sentence of 16 to 48 months in prison. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (concluding that to warrant an evidentiary hearing, claims must be supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief).

To the extent that appellant claims that the district court should have amended the judgment of conviction to correct the errors in the PSI, this claim is not properly before this court. This claim was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration filed after the district court denied appellant's motion for modification. Accordingly, we decline to consider it on appeal.

We note that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990).

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Silver
cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge

Mary Lou Wilson

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Washoe District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Tingley v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2015
No. 66582 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)
Case details for

Tingley v. State

Case Details

Full title:ADAM WYNN TINGLEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

Citations

No. 66582 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)