LORENZO DUNLAP III v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Lorenzo Dunlap, III, appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of owning or possessing a firearm by a prohibited person. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; David A. Hardy, Judge.

Dunlap argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing a 12-to-30-month prison sentence instead of suspending his sentence and granting him probation and a “therapeutic option.” He also argues the district court failed to consider his mitigation evidence. In this matter, the granting of probation was discretionary. See NRS 176A.100(1)(c); 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).

Dunlap's sentence was within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 202.360(1), and he does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. At the sentencing hearing, Dunlap argued and presented evidence in mitigation, and there is no indication the district court failed to consider these arguments or the mitigating evidence before it. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Dunlap on probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.