ANTHONY TYRONE GARRISON v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Anthony Tyrone Garrison appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of sell, transport, give or attempt to sell, transport or give a schedule I or II controlled substance, first offense. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; William A. Maddox, Senior Judge.

Garrison argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by relying on impalpable or highly suspect evidence and imposing a 14-to-35-month prison sentence rather than placing him on probation. 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).

Garrison claims the district court incorrectly believed Garrison had violated “every prior term of probation or parole. The presentence investigation report indicated that Garrison had 16 prior felony and misdemeanor convictions and that he had violated the terms of supervision in 9 of those 16 cases. Although the district court's statements regarding Garrison's performance on supervision were imprecise, Garrison has not demonstrated that the district court relied solely on impalpable or highly suspect evidence in imposing Garrison's sentence. See Denson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 492, 915 P.2d 284, 286 (1996) (providing that this court “will reverse a sentence if it is supported solely by impalpable and highly suspect evidence”).

Garrison also argues the district court failed to consider and address his mitigation evidence. At the sentencing hearing, Garrison 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. And the district court was not required to state its reasons for rejecting Garrison's probation request or for imposing the sentence. See Campbell v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998). The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 453.321(2)(a). Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant Garrison's request for probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.