Hatfield (Gregory) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Hatfield (Gregory) v. State

DecidedSeptember 17, 2014

Docket65828

StatusUnpublished

This text of Hatfield (Gregory) v. State (Hatfield (Gregory) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatfield (Gregory) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

determination on a habitual criminal allegation, see O'Neill v. State, 123 Nev. 9, 16, 153 P.3d 38, 43 (2007), and his sentence was within the statutory range permitted by NRS 207.010(1)(b)(3). To the extent that appellant raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, these claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Therefore, without considering the merits of the claims that were outside the scope permitted, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AF'FIRMED. 2

j, Hardesty

Douglas ideri; J.

J.

2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 RR 1947A e cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Gregory Allen Hatfield Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

determination on a habitual criminal allegation, see O'Neill v. State, 123 Nev. 9, 16, 153 P.3d 38, 43 (2007), and his sentence was within the statutory range permitted by NRS 207.010(1)(b)(3). To the extent that appellant raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, these claims fell outside the narrow scope of claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Therefore, without considering the merits of the claims that were outside the scope permitted, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AF'FIRMED. 2