shock the conscience." Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282,
284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson V. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220,
221-22 (1979)). Here, the sentence is within statutory limits, see NRS
193.165; NRS 200.050; NRS 200.080, and appellant does not challenge the
relevant statutes as unconstitutional. And we are not convinced that the
sentence is unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offense so
as to violate the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v. -
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). To the extent
appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
him, we conclude that appellant failed to show that the district court
abused its broad sentencing discretion. Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664,
747 P.3d 1376, 1379 (1987).
Second, appellant argues that the district court failed to make
the findings required under NRS 193.165(1) in imposing a deadly weapon
enhancement. Because he failed to object, we review appellant's claim for
plain error affecting his substantial rights. See NRS 178.602; Cordova v.
State, 116 Nev. 664, 666, 6 P.3d 481, 482-83 (2000). The district court
must articulate findings regarding each of the enumerated factors for each
deadly weapon enhancement. See Mendoza-Lobos v. State, 125 Nev. 634,
643-45, 218 P.3d 501, 507-08 (2009). Here, the district court heard
evidence and argument concerning the facts and circumstances of the
offense, appellant's lack of a significant criminal record, the impact of the
victim's death on his parents, and mitigation, including statements of
support from appellant's family and friends and appellant's oral and
written statements of remorse. See NRS 193.165(1). Although the better
practice would have been for the district court to make specific findings as
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
MENUZA.--1
11 ri114P 4 401*..,41-41 1)1,174 7.1,411417,
11 LINT 15;
7
' ' Zikr" -1. .i.4
mandated by Mendoza-Lobos, the record provides sufficient justification
for the sentence and the failure to explain that ruling more completely
does not render it constitutionally defective. See, e.g., Arizona v.
Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 516-17 (1978). Accordingly, appellant has
failed to demonstrate that the district court's omission affected his
substantial rights.
Having considered appellant's claim and concluded that no
relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Special Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
11F:::,; '4'1'1*W r), ;..-.1511113111111fforg,—
Martinez (Michael) v. State
Combined Opinion