Haro (Sergio) v. State ( 2015 )

 (declining to find reversible error where defense counsel invited the State's
argument).
We also note that the judgment of conviction contains a
clerical error. The State conceded below that it presented insufficient
evidence to support the trafficking charge relating to count V in the
information. The jury acquitted Haro of count V, but the judgment of
conviction indicates that Haro was found guilty, and Haro was sentenced
on the count. Following this court's issuance of its remittitur, the district
court shall enter a corrected judgment of conviction. See NRS 176.565
(providing that clerical errors in judgments may be corrected at any time).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
bcot
J.
Parraguirre
J.
Douglas
CHERRY, J., concurring:
I conclude that the prosecutor's statement was improper. See
Williams v. State, 103 Nev. 106, 110, 734 P.2d 700, 703 (1987). However, I
agree that Haro is not entitled to relief under the circumstances.
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I.947A
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20
Sanft Law, P.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e