Sharp (Mark) v. State

P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Here, the district court considered appellant's mitigation evidence, including his brother's testimony and letters appellant submitted to the court. The district court was also aware that appellant had incurred a prior felony conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance (level II) 17 years before sentencing in this case—the same crime to which he pleaded guilty in this• case—and several misdemeanor convictions. The district court expressly based its sentencing decision "upon the evidence that has been presented and the evidence presented by [appellant's brother]." Because appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Ma J. Pickering (Th r e-tA A arr arrj v )17#T- J. Saitta cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge

Hy Forgeron

Theodore C. Herrera

Attorney General/Carson City

Humboldt County District Attorney

Humboldt County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A 4e4.