for a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to challenge the 

validity of a guilty plea after sentencing. The State argued that 

construing the motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus, the motion was procedurally barred as it was filed almost nine 

years after entry of the judgment of conviction. See NRS 34.726(1). The 

district court determined that appellant was not challenging the validity 

of his judgment of conviction and sentence, but was challenging the 

computation of time served and denied the motion without prejudice for 

him to file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

To the extent that appellant raised a claim challenging an 

alleged breach of the plea agreement, the motion was untimely filed and 

appellant failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse his procedural 

defects. 2 See id. However, to the extent that appellant challenged the 

computation of time served, the district court correctly determined that 

this claim must be raised in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus, see NRS 34.724(2)(c), and could not be raised in a petition that also 

challenged the validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence, see 

NRS 34.738(3). Accordingly, we conclude that the motion was properly 

denied in this case. 3 

2Appellant argued that he had good cause because he just learned 

that the Department was incorrectly structuring his sentence. However, 

this does not provide good cause as the breach claim was reasonably 

available to be raised in a timely petition as the sentences were structured 

in 2005. The fact that appellant only thought to ask about his sentence 

structure in April 2014, does not provide good cause for the delay in this 

case. 

3We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the motion to appoint counsel. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Saitta 

J. 

Motion to Modify Sentence 

In his motion filed on June 18, 2014, appellant argued that his 

sentence should be reduced because of mental health issues and his 

amenability to future treatment and because he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Appellant's claims fell outside the narrow scope of 

claims permissible in a motion to modify sentence. See Edwards v. State, 

112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, without 

considering the merits of any of the claims raised in the motion, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4 

Gibbons 7gerg, 

4We 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 3 

, C.J. 

(0) 1947A .91040 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Michael S. French 

Attorney GenerallCarson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A 400