ISREAL ANTHONY BENNETT v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE AND LIMITED REMAND TO CORRECT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

Isreal Anthony Bennett appeals from a corrected judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of child abuse or neglect with substantial bodily or mental harm. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

Bennett argues that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by focusing only on the injuries to the child and by not giving due consideration to his mitigation evidence. Bennett argues he presented evidence that he was 23 years old when the crime occurred, he has stable employment, he has no notable criminal history, he expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions, he has family support, his risk assessment concluded he was not a high risk to reoffend, and he had stressors that existed at the time of his offense.

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 sentence imposed of 8 to 20 years is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See NRS 200.508(1)(a)(2). And Bennett does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. The district court stated it considered the information provided by Bennett in mitigation but determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the harm caused by Bennett's actions. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bennett.

A review of the record on appeal reveals that the corrected judgment of conviction contains a clerical error. It incorrectly states that Bennett was convicted pursuant to a jury verdict. Bennett pleaded guilty in this case. Because the district court has the authority to correct a clerical error at any time, see NRS 176.565, we direct the district court, upon remand, to enter another corrected judgment of conviction accurately reflecting Bennett's guilty plea. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED and REMAND this matter to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment of conviction.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.