2 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

•-:-T,P1 I r: .116S*11-77.7L.W.7.1;-7::_rn. ,Wvierk; vfEtrAL'WAW/IZMLTEgt*VMEBVEPEMfz'W. 7P_:; 7-1 

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, § 1, at 612-13 (NRS 

200.366(2)(b)(1)); 1991 Nev. Stat., ch. 403, § 6, at 1059 (NRS 193.165(1)). 

Because the district court has the authority to correct a clerical error at 

any time, we direct the district court to enter a corrected judgment of 

conviction, nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date, setting forth the 

2In opposing the motion, the State asserts that the offenses involved 

substantial bodily harm to the victim, but the information and verdicts do 

not support this assertion. 
J. 

corrected sentences for counts 2, 3, and 4, as follows: (1) for count 2, a 

term of life with the possibility of parole after 5 years, with an equal and 

consecutive term of life with the possibility of parole after 5 years, to be 

served consecutively to count 1; (2) for count 3, a term of life with the 

possibility of parole after 5 years, with an equal and consecutive term of 

life with the possibility of parole after 5 years, to be served consecutively 

to count 2; and (3) for count 4, a term of life with the possibility of parole 

after 5 years, with an equal and consecutive term of life with the 

possibility of parole after 5 years, to be served consecutively to count 3• 3 

The district court shall further correct the statutory reference to NRS 

200.366(2)(b). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and 

direct the district court to CORRECT the judgment of conviction as set 

forth above. 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Curtis Lundy Downing 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3The sentences for counts 1 and 5 do not require correction. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3