Hermanski (Gregory) v. State ( 2014 )

 claim was without merit and appellant failed to demonstrate that his
sentence was facially illegal. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918
P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Generally, a notice of appeal divests the district
court of jurisdiction until this court issues its remittitur, thus returning
jurisdiction to the district court. Buffington v. State, 110 Nev. 124, 126,
868 P.2d 643, 644 (1994). However, while an appeal is pending and prior
to issuance of the remittitur, the district court retains jurisdiction to
address "matters that in no way affect the appeal's merits." Mack-Manley
v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 855, 138 P.3d 525, 529-30 (2006). After this court
issued its decision and shortly before the issuance of the remittitur, the
district court amended the judgment of conviction to correct a
typographical error as instructed by this court. Under these
circumstances, appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court did
not have jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment of conviction as the
correction of the typographical error did not affect the merits of appellant's
appeal. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err
in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that his sentence violated the
Double Jeopardy Clause. This claim fell outside the narrow scope of
claims permissible in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See
Edwards, 112 Nev. at 708, 918 P.2d at 324. Therefore, without
considering the merits of this claim, we conclude that the district court did
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
( 0) 1947A e
not err in denying it. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying
the motion and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
j.
rct-OL
Parraguirre
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Gregory Scott Hermanski
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We 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
(0) 1947A