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. 7 P_:; 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

2 In 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

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

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3