DARNELLE EDWARD BOYKINS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Darnelle Edward Boykins appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon; discharging a firearm at or into an occupied vehicle; and assault with the use of a deadly weapon, victim being a first responder. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge.

Boykins claims the district court abused its discretion by imposing an aggregate term of 200-to-624-months in prison because it did not give due consideration to Boykins’ extraordinary personal circumstances. Specifically, Boykins argues the district court failed to consider that Boykins suffered a traumatic brain injury as a child, has a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, and has a history of suicide attempts.

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).

Here, the record reflects the district court reviewed and considered Boykins’ mitigating evidence and arguments but concluded the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the serious and dangerous nature of his conduct. Boykins’ 200-to-624-month aggregate prison sentence falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.153(1)(a); NRS 193.165(1); NRS 193.1677(1); NRS 200.030(4); NRS 202.285(1)(b); NRS 200.471(2)(b). And Boykins does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, nor does he allege that the district court failed to articulate specific findings in support of the deadly weapon enhancement or the first responder victim enhancement. See NRS 193.165(1)(a)-(e); NRS 193.1677(1)(a)-(e). Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Boykins. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.