DAMIEN ANTHONY BROOKS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Damien Anthony Brooks appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of grand larceny. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Christy L. Craig, Judge.

Brooks argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing $2,567 in restitution. In pertinent part, Brooks was convicted of stealing an Apple MacBook Air (MacBook). The State asked for $2,221.90 in restitution for the MacBook. Brooks argued the district court should award a lesser amount because the MacBook was approximately one-year old at the time it was stolen. Brooks did not provide any evidence at the sentencing hearing regarding the fair market value of a one-year-old MacBook.

“We review a district court's restitution determination for an abuse of discretion.” Gee v. State, 140 Nev. 154, 156, 545 P.3d 90, 93 (2024). “A sentencing judge generally has wide discretion when ordering restitution pursuant to NRS 176.033(3) but must use reliable and accurate information in calculating a restitution award.” Nied v. State, 138 Nev. 275, 277, 509 P.3d 36, 39 (2022)); see also Gee, 140 Nev. at 157, 545 P.3d at 94 (specifying that evidence to support a restitution award must be “competent evidence”). “A defendant is not entitled to a full evidentiary hearing at sentencing regarding restitution, but a defendant is entitled to challenge restitution sought by the state and may obtain and present evidence to support that challenge.” Gee, 140 Nev. at 156, 545 P.3d at 93 (internal quotation marks omitted).

First, Brooks argues the district court abused its discretion by not continuing the sentencing hearing so that he could challenge the requested restitution. The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates Brooks was given the supporting documentation for the restitution request prior to sentencing. His opportunity to challenge the State ’s evidence was at the sentencing hearing, and he did not request a continuance of the hearing in order to obtain evidence to challenge the requested restitution. Therefore, we conclude Brooks was afforded an opportunity to challenge the requested restitution, and he fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion by not, sua sponte, continuing the sentencing hearing.

Second, Brooks argues the State did not provide reliable and accurate evidence regarding the value of the MacBook. Specifically, he argues the State should have provided the fair market value of the MacBook rather than the replacement value. Brooks fails to provide this court with the evidence the State presented to support its request for restitution. Thus, we presume the evidence supports the decision of the district court to award $2,221.90 in restitution for the MacBook. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007); see also NRAP 30(b); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) (“The burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant.”). Therefore, Brooks fails to demonstrate that the district court relied on unreliable or inaccurate evidence where the State ’s evidence presumably supported the restitution amount and Brooks failed to provide evidence to support his challenge to the amount proven by the State. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding restitution, and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.