Salcido (Carlos) v. State

that the district court's involvement in the plea bargain process left him in "a state of coercive confusion." Salcido did not preserve this issue for appellate review, see id. at 772, 137 P.3d at 1192 (it is defendant's responsibility to ensure that "any alleged errors [are] properly preserved for appellate review"), so we review for plain error, see NRS 178.602; Gallego v. State, 117 Nev. 348, 365,

23 P.3d 227, 239

(2001) (reviewing unpreserved claims for plain error), abrogated on other grounds by Nunnery v. State, 127

Nev. , n.12, 263 P.3d 235, 253 n.12 (2011). "In conducting plain error…