EMMANUEL INFANTE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Emmanuel Infante appeals from a judgment conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance, 14 grams or more but less than 28 grams. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Scott N. Freeman, Judge.

Infante argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by denying his request for adult drug court based on his immigration status and by requiring him to report his conviction to immigration authorities. Infante did not object on these grounds below, and he does not argue plain error on appeal. See Martinorellan v. State, 131 Nev. 43, 48, 343 P.3d 590, 593 (2015) (stating “all unpreserved errors are to be reviewed for plain error without regard as to whether they are of constitutional dimension”). Specifically, Infante does not argue that any errors are “clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record.” Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev, 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018). We thus conclude he has forfeited these claims, and we decline to review them on appeal. See id. at 52, 412 P.3d at 49 (“[T]he decision whether to correct a forfeited error is discretionary.”); see also Miller v. State, 121 Nev. 92, 99, 110 P.3d 53, 58 (2005) (stating it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate plain error); State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Doane), 138 Nev. 896, 900, 521 P.3d 1215, 1221 (2022) (recognizing the Nevada appellate courts “follow the principle of party presentation” and thus “rely on the parties to frame the issues for decisions and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present” (quoting Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008))); Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev. 632, 633-34, 497 P.3d 618, 619 (2021) (“We will not supply an argument on a party's behalf but review only the issues the parties present.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.