RICARDO PACHACO MARQUEZ RICARDO PACHECO MARQUEZ v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ricardo Pachaco-Marquez appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of duty to stop at scene of crash involving death or personal injury. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

Pachaco-Marquez argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by failing to adequately consider his mitigating evidence and by imposing the maximum sentence on the second count. Pachaco-Marquez contends that statements made by the court demonstrate that it effectively discounted the letters submitted on his behalf and instead relied solely on the victim impact statements.

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).

The district court imposed a 36-to-96-month prison sentence for the first count and a concurrent 96-to-240-month prison sentence for the second count. The sentences imposed are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 484E.010(3). And Pachaco-Marquez does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Moreover, prior to imposing Pachaco-Marquez's sentence, the district court specifically stated it read and appreciated the 18 letters of support Pachaco-Marquez submitted in mitigation. The district court explained that it took those letters to heart, just as it took to heart the victim impact statements, which it could not ignore. The court's statements do not demonstrate that it discounted Pachaco-Marquez's mitigating evidence or relied solely on the victim impact statements in imposing Pachaco-Marquez's sentence. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pachaco-Marquez. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.