Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KAPENA KAINUI FARIS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Kapena Kainui Paris appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of residential burglary. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carli Lynn Kierny, Judge.
Faris argues the district court erred by sentencing him based upon an incorrect presentence investigation report (PSI). Faris contends the PSI should be corrected and he should be resentenced with a correct PSI that does not reflect that he had two prior prison “incarcerations” when he has only been in prison once.
We review issues related to correcting a PSI for an abuse of discretion. See Blankenship v. State, 132 Nev. 500, 506, 375 P.3d 407, 411 (2016). Generally, alleged factual inaccuracies in a PSI do not warrant relief if they do not impact the defendant's sentence. See Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. 243, 250 n.6, 255 P.3d 209, 214 n.6 (2011). However, a defendant may be entitled to relief where the factual inaccuracies are “materially prejudicial because of their potential effect on the defendant s prison classification or parole eligibility.” Id. But, where the challenged information in the PSI was not based on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, this court does not need to consider whether the information could possibly materially prejudice a defendant's prison classification or his chances of being released on parole. See Gomez v. State, 130 Nev. 404, 408, 324 P.3d 1226, 1229 (2014).
Faris received the 30-to-120-month prison sentence he stipulated to as part of his plea agreement, and Faris does not argue the alleged factual inaccuracy impacted his sentence. Further, he does not argue that the alleged factual inaccuracy constitutes impalpable or highly suspect evidence or that it is materially prejudicial to his prison classification or parole eligibility. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to correct the PSI prior to sentence. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons, C.J.
Bulla, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 86899-COA
Decided: April 22, 2024
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)