From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haugen v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2015
No. 65889 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)

Opinion

No. 65889

02-04-2015

JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER HAUGEN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea of possession of stolen property. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James E. Wilson, Judge.

Appellant claims that the victim impact statement given during sentencing was broader than authorized by NRS 176.015(3) and impermissibly impacted the district court's sentencing decision. However, appellant did not object to the victim impact statement, so we review for plain error. See Dieudonne v. State, 127 Nev. ___, ___, 245 P.3d 1202, 1204-05 (2011).

"An error is plain if the error is so unmistakable that it reveals itself by a casual inspection of the record. At a minimum, the error must be clear under current law, and, normally, the defendant must show that an error was prejudicial in order to establish that it affected substantial rights." Saletta v. State, 127 Nev. ___, ___, 254 P.3d 111, 114 (2011) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

The record reveals that, after the victim finished testifying, defense counsel stated that she "believed that the victim made some statements that are appealable" and asked the district court "to explain on the record the basis for [its] sentence." Before imposing sentence, the district court stated that it had considered the fact that appellant had no prior felony convictions, served in the military, and pleaded guilty. The district court further stated that it considered the value of the stolen property and the harm that the victims suffered. The district court plainly stated that appellant was being sentenced for possession of stolen property and not for burglary. Based on this record, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated plain error or any error, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. James E, Wilson, District Judge

Kay Ellen Armstrong

Attorney General/Carson City

Carson City District Attorney

Carson City Clerk


Summaries of

Haugen v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 4, 2015
No. 65889 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)
Case details for

Haugen v. State

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY CHRISTOPHER HAUGEN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

Citations

No. 65889 (Nev. App. Feb. 4, 2015)