Preview:

Appellant's claim fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible. Failure to specify the minimum term does not render the sentence illegal nor does it implicate the jurisdiction of the district court. Further, failure to specify the minimum term for parole eligibility is not a mistake about the defendant's criminal record. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion.
However, we note NRS 176.105(1)(c) requires the judgment of conviction to set forth the term of imprisonment and a reference to the applicable provision of the statute if necessary to determine parole eligibility, and failure to specify a parole eligibility may be a clerical error susceptible to correction at any time. NRS 176.565. Here, the judgment of conviction set forth the term of imprisonment, life, but did not specify the minimum parole eligibility term or reference a specific subsection of NRS
200.366. A review of the record, including the information and the verdict forms, indicates that the offenses in this case involved sexual assault with a deadly weapon, without any allegation of substantial bodily harm. 2 Thus, the minimum parole eligibility term for the offenses committed on or about January 21, 1993, was a term of five years for each sexual assault, with an equal and consecutive term of five years for each deadly weapon enhancement, the terms for each count ordered to be served consecutively. See 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 250,

Download 61310.pdf

Nevada Law