ROCK DOMINECK v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Rock L. Domineck appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of failure to obey laws and regulations regarding registration of sex offender, second or subsequent offense. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge.

Domineck argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing a 19-to-48-month prison sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed in a separate case despite the mitigating circumstances and without articulating specific reasons for the sentence.

It is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See NRS 176.035(1); Pitmon v. State, 131 Nev. 123, 128-29, 352 P,3d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2015); see also Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (“The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence ․”). 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 sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 179D.550(2); NRS 193.130(2)(c). And Domineck does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Further, a district court is not required to articulate its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. See Campbell v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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 Domineck. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.