STEPHEN EVERETT BICKFORD v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Stephen Everett Bickford appeals from two judgments of conviction, both entered pursuant to guilty pleas. In district court case no. CR23-1412 (Docket No. 88855), Bickford was convicted of obtaining or using the personal identifying information of another to harm or for an unlawful purpose. In district court case no. CR23-1510 (Docket No. 88856), Bickford was convicted of attempted obtaining or using the personal identifying information of another to harm or for an unlawful purpose. These cases were consolidated on appeal. NRAP 3(b). Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Tammy Riggs, Judge.

Bickford argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing an aggregate prison sentence of 12-to-30 years despite the nonviolent nature of the crimes, Bickford's traumatic childhood, and his commitment to substance abuse treatment. As part of the plea agreements, the parties agreed to jointly recommend the sentences imposed in each case run concurrently. The district court imposed an 8-to-20-year prison sentence in case no. CR23-1412 and a consecutive 4-to-10-year prison sentence in case no. CR23-1510.

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 consecutive sentences imposed in this case are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.153(1)(a)(2); NRS 205.463(1). And Bickford does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. In a sentencing memorandum and at the sentencing hearing, Bickford presented the mitigating evidence he identifies on appeal—his traumatic childhood, his substance abuse history, and his efforts to treat his substance abuse issues. There is no indication the district court failed to take this evidence into consideration before imposing Bickford's sentences. Despite Bickford's mitigating evidence, the district court concluded the imposed sentences were warranted given Bickford's criminal history and his choice to continuously “prey[ ] on” and victimize others. Having considered the sentences and the crimes, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bickford's sentences. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.