court's findings related to NRS 193.165 (weapons enhancement), which
required district court to consider factors similar to NRS 193.167(3), would
be granted relief only upon showing of plain error). Here, the district
court did not expressly indicate that it considered the mandated factors
but was aware of the facts and circumstances of the crime and appellant's
extensive criminal history. The district court heard argument that
appellant suffered physical, mental, and sexual abuse as a child and
struggles with substance abuse problems. Although there is no mention of
the impact of the crime on the victim, counsel argued that appellant
understood that his crime was perpetrated on an elderly victim. And
appellant expressed his remorse for the crime, which the district court
considered sincere. Although the district court did not strictly follow the
requirements of NRS 193.167(3), considering the record as a whole, we
conclude that appellant failed to demonstrate plain error. We further
conclude that appellant failed to show that the district court abdicated its
sentencing responsibility. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
\D-oLut_im
Douglas Saitta
cc: Second Judicial District Court Dept. 8
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ••••,,
=14 g -;AAVEIE-Wi r