IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LOUIS RANDOLPH, A/K/A CLYDE 

LEWIS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Res ondent. 

No. 84269 

ILE 

SEP 1 5 2022 

EOZAE:ETH A. BROWN 

CLERK Qf 8'PRUE COURT 

BY 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPUTY CLERK 

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 

(0) I947A ,076, 

2 
Parraguirre 

Sr.J. 

Cadish 

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

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge 

Louis Randolph 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

40) I947A 

3