Kershaw v. StateKershaw v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
OPINION
Per Curiam:The prosecuting attorney agreed to forego filing charges of felony narcotic offenses, alleged to have been committed by Michael Kershaw in the Nevada State Prison. In exchange for this agreement, Kershaw entered a solemn plea of guilty to a charge of having escaped from prison, a violation of
Kershaw, obviously disenchanted because the sentence was “consecutive” rather than “concurrent,” has appealed claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because the sentencing judge relied on (1) an inaccurate pre-sentence report; and, (2) records of the juvenile court which showed that Kershaw, as a juvenile, had committed a number of “felony” offenses.
When sentence was imposed, the trial judge declined to consider portions of the pre-sentence report which Kershaw then *292challenged. We decline to consider challenges to other portions of the report, which are now advanced for the first time. Moser v. State, 91 Nev. 809, 544 P.2d 424 (1975). Cf. Thomas v. State, 88 Nev. 382, 498 P.2d 1314 (1972). Furthermore, at sentencing, the district judge stated: “I am not basing my decision on the juvenile record.” Thus, in the context presented, we consider Kershaw’s claims of error as being patently frivolous. Burks v. State, 92 Nev. 670, 557 P.2d 711 (1976). Cf. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973).
Affirmed.
Notes
“1. A felony, shall be punished:
“(b) . . . by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years.”