le consideration controls the issue. As a result, we concluded that the factual aspects of the test must be considered by the district court before the question could be reviewed on appeal and so the issue was not properly before the court. 287 Kan. at 161, 194 P.3d 1195." 288 Kan. at 161, 199 P.3d 1265.
We conclude that Mondragon, Thomas, and Ortega-Cadelan control. Robison's "argument that his life sentence pursuant to [K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1)] is a cruel or unusual punishment, which was ... not argued before the district court, cannot be presented for the first time on appeal." 288 Kan. at 161, 199 P.3d 1265.

(2) Whether the district court erred in denying Robison's motion for a downward durational departure sentence

Robison claims that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward durational departure sentence. K.S.A. 21-4643(d) *504 provides that the district "judge shall impose the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment provided by subsection (a), unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons, following a review of mitigating circumstances, to impose a departure."

Standard of Review
Contrary to Robison's contention that this issue involves the interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4643(d), calling for an unlimited de novo review, the established standard of review is one of abuse of discretion. See Mondragon, State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715, 217 P.3d 443 (2009), and Thomas, wherein we stated:
"On appellate review of this process, we apply a broad abuse of discretion standard because this issue involves the district court's consideration and weighing of mitigating circumstances. Under this standard `"[j]udicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district judge."' Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 165, 194 P.3d 1195, (quoting State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 144, 119 P.3d 1148 [2005]); see State v. Jones, 283 Kan. 186, 215-16, 151 P.3d 22 (2007) (same broad abuse of discretion standard applies to appellate review of weighing of aggravating and mitiga