rulings. {28} The trial court also found that Defendant posed a danger to the victim and an eyewitness who testified at trial. This finding alone could have been a sufficient basis for increasing Defendant’s sentence. Citing to Swafford, Defendant argues that, where the trial judge relies on two different sentencing factors, and one may be impermissible, the appellate court should reverse for re-sentencing. See id. at 17 n. 11, 810 P.2d at 1237 n. 11; see also James, 109 N.M. at 284, 784 P.2d at 1027. In those cases, however, one of the factors was clearly impermissible. We have determined that lack of remorse was a permissible sentencing factor in this case, and therefore we do not face the same concern. See State v. Castillo-Sanchez, 1999 NMCA 085, ¶ 28, 127 N.M. 540, 984 P.2d 787 (<HOLDING>). Even if we had doubts about the
holding that rulings not challenged on appeal are implicitly affirmed holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties