MICHAEL LAWRENCE SEGNA v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Michael Lawrence Segna appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of assault with the use of a deadly weapon; resisting a public officer with the use of a dangerous weapon other than a firearm; and possessing, receiving, or transferring a stolen vehicle. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Tammy Riggs, Judge.

Segna argues the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to prison for an aggregate term of 71 to 180 months. He contends the district court did not give due consideration to the issues presented on his behalf at the sentencing hearing, including his tragic upbringing, his youthful age, his decision to take responsibility for his actions, and his status as a new father. 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 is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes.¹ See NRS 193.130(2)(c), (d); NRS 199.280(2); NRS 200.471(2)(b); NRS 205.273(3). And Segna does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. At the sentencing hearing, the district court commented it had reviewed Segna's sentencing memorandum, which contained the mitigation evidence Segna references on appeal, and Segna presented argument to support his sentencing request for probation ² or minimum, concurrent terms of imprisonment. Based on Segna's history of not complying with court orders or with supervised release and based on concerns for the community's protection given the facts of the instant offenses, the district court determined probation was not warranted and imposed the above-mentioned aggregate sentence. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Segna. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court imposed a prison term of 28 to 72 months for the assault count, 19 to 48 months for the resisting count, and 24 to 60 months for the stolen vehicle count.

2.   We note that the granting of probation in this matter was discretionary. See NRS 176A.100(1)(c).