JOSEPH JAMAL TUTSON v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Joseph Jamal Tutson appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of coercion with physical force or immediate threat of physical force. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge.

Tutson argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by not giving due consideration to his mitigating circumstances when declining to place Tutson on probation. The granting of probation in this case 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).

Tutson's sentence of two to six years in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 207.190(2)(a), and Tutson does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. At sentencing the district court acknowledged Tutson's mitigating circumstances but concluded, based on Tutson's criminal history, that this was not a “probation case” but was rather an “accountability case,” and imposed a prison sentence. Based on this record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Tutson on probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.