[¶ 4] Generally, a trial court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200. "Our appellate review of a criminal sentence is very limited." State v. Ennis, 464 N.W.2d 378, 382 (N.D. 1990).

We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 8, 575 N.W.2d 200 ("The Legislature did not restrict a trial court from imposing both a maximum probation sentence and a maximum imprisonment sentence for misdemeanors."); see also State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65, ¶ 16, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues will not be considered for the first time on appeal). [¶2]

[¶28] The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing. State v. McClean , 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200. On appeal, this Court has no power to review the sentencing court’s discretion in fixing a term of imprisonment within the range authorized by statute.

1(3), if a defendant “has pled or been found guilty of a felony sexual offense in violation of chapter 12.1–20, the court shall impose at least five years but not more than ten years of supervised probation to be served after sentencing or incarceration.” See State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 7, 575 N.W.2d 200 (“[T]he Legislature gave the trial court the ability to impose a maximum probation sentence separate from and in addition to its ability to impose a maximum imprisonment sentence. The Legislature's intent was to allow probation sentences beyond the maximum term of imprisonment.”).

[¶ 4] A trial court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200. Within this discretion, a trial court has the authority to determine whether a sentence should run concurrent with or consecutive to another sentence. State v. Ulmer, 1999 ND 245, ¶ 4, 603 N.W.2d 865. This discretion is limited by statute when imposing consecutive sentences for multiple misdemeanor convictions:

We exercise our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 9, 575 N.W.2d 200. [¶ 8] We have adopted the framework the United States Supreme Court identified in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) to analyze "plain error" under F.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

[¶ 6] On appeal, our review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the trial court "`acted within the sentencing limits prescribed by statute, or substantially relied upon an impermissible factor.'" State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200 (quoting State v. Magnuson, 1997 ND 228, ¶ 23, 571 N.W.2d 642). "Our appellate review of a criminal sentence is very limited." State v. Ennis, 464 N.W.2d 378, 382 (N.D. 1990).

[¶ 10] In criminal sentencing, the trial court is allowed the widest range of discretion. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 4, 575 N.W.2d 200. The sentences in this case were within the ranges allowed for the offenses to which Crumley pled guilty. Further, the trial court clearly stated that one 5-year sentence was to be served consecutively to the concurrent sentences already imposed and that another 5-year sentence was to be served consecutively to both the concurrent and previously imposed consecutive sentences.

We exercise our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice. State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 9, 575 N.W.2d 200. A.

II [¶ 4] Generally, unless there is a statute to the contrary, it is within the trial court's sound discretion whether a sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.State v. McClean, 1998 ND 21, ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d 200. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11(3) places some limitation upon imposing consecutive sentences for multiple misdemeanor convictions: When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, except that a defendant being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors may be subject to an aggregate maximum not exceeding that authorized by section 12.1-32-01 for a class C felony if each class A misdemeanor was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective.