SHAWN REA HANCOCK v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Shawn Rea Hancock appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted coercion constituting domestic violence. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Steven R. Kosach, Senior Judge.

Hancock argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing the sentence jointly recommended by the parties without exercising its independent discretion or articulating what factors it considered in imposing his sentence. The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decision. See Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). Generally, this court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the district court that falls within the parameters of relevant sentencing statutes “[s]o long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence.” Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976); see Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998).

Hancock's 19-to-48-month prison sentence is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 193.153(1)(a)(3); NRS 207.190(2)(a). And Hancock does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. The district court imposed the sentence that Hancock agreed to recommend as part of his plea agreement, and it was not required to articulate its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. See Campbell v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998). Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hancock. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.