ZARATE PIMENTAL v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Zarate-Pimental argues the district court abused its discretion by adjudicating him as a habitual criminal and sentencing him pursuant to the small habitual criminal enhancement. See NRS 207.010(1)(a). Specifically, he contends habitual criminal adjudication was inappropriate because two of his convictions were stale, his prior convictions were nonviolent offenses, and he presented mitigating information. The district court has broad discretion to dismiss a count of habitual criminality brought pursuant to NRS 207.010. See NRS 207.010(3); O'Neill v. State, 123 Nev. 9, 12, 153 P.2d 38, 40 (2007). The record reveals the district court understood its sentencing authority and properly exercised its discretion to adjudicate Zarate-Pimental as a habitual criminal. See generally Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 996 P.2d 890 (2000); see also Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 (1992) (“NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent crimes or for the remoteness of convictions.”). In the judgment of conviction, the district court stated it considered Zarate-Pimental's criminal record in its entirety and found that application of the habitual offender punishment was fair and just. Further, the district court found that the five prior convictions were not remote, trivial, or stale, and that they qualified under NRS 207.010. Finally, the district court stated it weighed the factors for and against habitual criminal adjudication, exercised its broad and individualized discretion, and found that habitual criminal adjudication served the purpose of the statute and interests of justice. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.