GARCIA v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

First, Garcia argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by considering victim impact statements of the victim's aunt and uncle because they did not qualify as “victims” as defined by NRS 176.015(5)(b). Garcia did not object to the district court's consideration of the victim impact statements below, and he does not argue plain error on appeal. Specifically, he does not argue, and thus does not demonstrate, that the alleged error is clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record and affected his substantial rights. See Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018). We thus conclude Garcia has forfeited this claim, and we decline to review it on appeal. See Miller v. State, 121 Nev. 92, 99, 110 P.3d 53, 58 (2005) (stating it is the appellant's burden to demonstrate plain error); see also 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.”).

Second, Garcia claims the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by declining to consider a text message allegedly sent to him from the victim. “A district court is vested with wide discretion regarding sentencing,” and “[f]ew limitations are imposed on a judge's right to consider evidence in imposing a sentence.” Denson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 492, 915 P.2d 284, 286 (1996). The text message was purportedly included in a PowerPoint presentation Garcia utilized at the sentencing hearing. The PowerPoint presentation is not included in the record on appeal, and the full text message is not apparent from the transcript of the sentencing hearing. Because Garcia failed to include essential portions of the record for our review, he fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion. See Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) (“The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant.”); see also Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007) (“When an appellant fails to include necessary documentation in the record, we necessarily presume that the missing portion supports the district court's decision.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.