Cited by

See, e.g., RSA 318-B:26 (Supp. 2019) (setting punishments for various drug offenses); State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 305 (2007) (“[A] trial court has broad discretion in sentencing.”).

However, the rule should be used sparingly, its use limited to those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.

We have subsequently cited Perkins for the proposition that “a trial court has discretion under RSA 651:2 to sentence a defendant to both the maximum term of imprisonment and probation.” State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 304 (2007).

“Criminal contempt is a sanction imposed by the trial court when a defendant has intentionally failed to comply with a valid order of which the *19 defendant had knowledge.” State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 304 (2007).

*242 The sentencing court must make clear at the time of sentencing in plain and certain terms what punishment it is exacting as well as the extent to which it retains discretion to impose punishment at a later date and under what conditions the sentence may be modified.

In State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301 (2007), we considered whether the trial court had the statutory authority to sentence a defendant to probation in addition to the maximum allowable fine and maximum allowable period of incarceration.

To find plain error: “(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain[;] (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 303 (2007) (quotation omitted).

All issues raised by the defendant in his notice of appeal, but not briefed, are deemed waived.

The defendant does not specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief, and therefore fails to preserve a state constitutional claim.

To preserve a state constitutional claim, the defendant must: (1) raise it in the trial court; and (2) specifically invoke a provision of the State Constitution in his brief.

Finally, the defendant argues, based upon our opinion in State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 302-05 (2007), that it was plain error for the trial court to have imposed the sentence that it did and that the sentence must, therefore, be vacated.

Before we may do so: “(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; [and] (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 303 (2007) (quotation omitted).