Opinion ID: 2533974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Habitual criminality

Text: Hymon argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as a habitual criminal because the certified copies of his judgments of conviction were not properly admitted into evidence. Hymon contends that the convictions were not before the court because, while they were introduced and marked, the district court never admitted them. NRS 207.016(3) provides: If a defendant charged pursuant to NRS 207.010, 207.012 or 207.014 pleads guilty to or is found guilty of the primary offense but denies any previous conviction charged, the court shall determine the issue of the previous conviction after hearing all relevant evidence presented on the issue by the prosecution and the defendant. For the defendant to be sentenced as a habitual criminal, the State must prove the defendant's prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. [43] [A] certified copy of a felony conviction is prima facie evidence of conviction of a prior felony. [44] We conclude that Hymon's argument is without merit. While the better practice is for the district court to clearly enunciate that evidence has been admitted, other courts have recognized that the failure to do so is not fatal. [45] `It is not indispensable that an exhibit be offered and admitted in evidence by any precise words.' [46] In this case, it is unclear whether the certified copies of Hymon's judgments of conviction were admitted into evidence because the district court did not specifically state that they were. Nevertheless, the documents were received into evidence, the parties argued them, and based on certified copies of Hymon's judgments of conviction, the district court determined that Hymon qualified as a habitual criminal. The copies were marked. The State presented Hymon with copies, and the district court trailed the proceedings so that Hymon could review them. Upon reconvening, Hymon not only objected to the evidence, but he also successfully argued against the validity of one of the convictions. The district court clearly considered the documents when it sentenced Hymon as a habitual criminal. The vault exhibit form shows that four certified copies of judgments of conviction were offered and admitted. Furthermore, on appeal, Hymon does not dispute the validity of the four judgments of conviction. Accordingly, the district court did not err by determining that Hymon qualified as a habitual criminal and sentencing Hymon as such.