Randolph (Louis) v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LOUIS RANDOLPH, A/K/A CLYDE No. 84269
LEWIS,
Appellant, ILE
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, SEP 1 5 2022
Res ondent. EOZAE:ETH A. BROWN
CLERK Qf 8'PRUE COURT
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a
motion to correct an illegal sentence.' Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Erika D. Ballou, Judge.
Appellant argues that his sentence for first-degree murder was
illegal because the trial court released the jury following the guilty verdict
and imposed the sentence itself when NRS 175.552 instead required that
the trial court hold a separate penalty hearing before the trial jury when
appellant did not stipulate in writing to waive the separate penalty hearing
before the trial jury. He asserts that in these circumstances, the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence for first-degree murder.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence may address "only the
facial legality of a sentence." Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d
321, 324 (1996). An illegal sentence is one where the sentencing court lacks
jurisdiction or imposes a sentence that exceeds the maximum statutory
term. Id. A motion to correct "cannot, however, be used as a vehicle for
'Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude
that a response is not necessary. NRAP 46A(c). This appeal therefore has
been submitted for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. See
NRAP 34()(3).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(01 194 7A 4e17.
-a scia
challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction or sentence based on
alleged errors occurring at trial or sentencing." Id.Here, appellant argues that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because it violated NRS 175.552(1)(a). We disagree because the
separate hearing provision in NRS 175.551(1)(a) is a procedural rule that is
waivable and not jurisdictional. See Hubbard v. State, 110 Nev. 671, 677,
877 P.2d 519, 522 (1994) (distinguishing jurisdictional defenses from
waivable ones); State v. Williams, 686 S.E.2d 493, 505 (N.C. 2009) (holding
that statutory requirements that the same jury and judge would hear the
trial and sentencing stages in a death penalty case were procedural and not
jurisdictional); Snyder v. Commonwealth, 121 S.E.2d 452, 456 (Va. 1961)
("It is a well settled rule of criminal procedure that if an accused may waive
a provision concerning the steps to be followed in a criminal prosecution,
such provision is procedural, and not jurisdictional."); see ctlso Illinois v.
Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 481-82 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting)
(explaining that jurisdictional errors are not waivable because one
institution may not invade the jurisdiction of another). Appellant has
asserted a procedural error, not a jurisdictional one. That procedural error
occurred at sentencing and therefore falls outside the limited scope of a
motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918
P.2d at 324. Appellant also has not shown that the sentence imposed for
the first-degree murder conviction exceeded that permitted by statute. See
NRS 200.030(4)(b) (1993). Cf. State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Pullin),
124 Nev. 564, 567, 188 P.3d 1079, 1081 (2008) ("It is well established that
under Nevada law, the proper penalty is the penalty in effect at the time of
the commission of the offense and not the penalty in effect at the time of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A ,076,
sentencing."). Because appellant has not shown that his sentence is facially
illegal, the district court properly denied his motion to correct.
Having considered appellant's contentions and concluded that
relief is not warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.2
Parraguirre
Sr.J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge
Louis Randolph
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
40) I947A