DEADRIN CHANEL CARTER v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Deadrin Chanel Carter appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of statutory sexual seduction by a person under the age of 21, second offense, and ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.¹ Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Barry L. Breslow, Judge.

Carter argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive prison sentences (1) despite Carter presenting mitigating evidence at sentencing, including that he suffers from a learning disability and operates as a younger person based on prior trauma; and (2) because the offenses were alleged to have occurred on the same day. 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).

Here, the sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 200.368(3); NRS 202.360(1). And Carter does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Prior to imposing sentence,² the district heard argument that Carter suffered from a learning disability and past trauma that impeded his maturity, and nothing in the record indicates the district court did not consider this evidence. Further, Carter provides no binding authority for the proposition that a district court abuses its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences for offenses alleged to have occurred on the same day. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Carter, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State questions whether jurisdiction over this appeal is evident from the record. We conclude the notice of appeal was timely filed and that we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

2.   Carter was sentenced in three separate cases during the same sentencing hearing and was represented by two different attorneys in those cases.