Opinion
No. 86465-COA
12-14-2023
Renard Truman POLK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
In his motion, Polk claimed his sentence was illegal because he was not properly certified as an adult; his confession was obtained illegally; the judgment of conviction erroneously states he was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea and the district court has failed to correct this error ; trial, appellate, and postconviction counsel were ineffective; and he was not allowed to be present at postconviction proceedings. 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). Further "[a] motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not, therefore, be used to challenge alleged errors in proceedings that occur prior to the imposition of sentence." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court may summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motion raises issues that fall outside of the very narrow scope of issues permissible in such motions. Id. at 708 n.2, 918 P.2d at 325 n.2.
We note that the district court entered an amended judgment of conviction on February 9, 2005, correcting this error.
Without considering the merits of Polk's claims, we conclude they fall outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to modify or correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying Polk's motion, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.