district court sentenced Nelson within the scope of the applicable statutes. CONCLUSION We conclude that NRS 484.348(3)(b) is not unconstitutionally vague. Nelson’s remaining arguments on appeal similarly lack merit, and we therefore affirm the district court’s judgment of con viction. However, we remand to the district court to correct the language in the judgment of conviction as required by NRS 176.105 so as to properly identify the habitual criminal provisions that were applied to each count. Maupin, C. J., Gibbons, Parraguirre, Douglas, Cherry and Saitta, JJ., concur. 1 The court did not impose consecutive sentences for the deadly weapon enhancement as alleged in count 2 because Nelson was sentenced as a habitual criminal. Odoms v. State, 102 Nev. 27, 34, 714 P.2d 568, 572 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 2 Zabeti v. State, 120 Nev. 530, 534, 96 P.3d
holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that the district court may enhance a sentence for the use of a deadly weapon or under the habitual criminal statute but not both holding hand can be deadly weapon recognizing that deadly weapon finding may be made even when weapon used is unknown holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony