State v. Roller

Summary

The court affirmed Roller’s convictions and sentences, holding that an instruction requiring both willful damage and intentional pecuniary loss correctly stated the law and did not constitute obvious error. It also held that the district court properly treated the habitual-offender determination as part of sentencing, where the rules of evidence do not apply, and therefore did not impose an illegal sentence. The court further declined to review unbriefed and inadequately preserved sentencing arguments.