Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THOMAS EDWARD GEISLER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Thomas Edward Geisler appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of two counts of evading, eluding or failing to stop on signal of a peace officer, endangering other person or property. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Barry L. Breslow, Judge.
Geisler argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by not placing him on probation or imposing the minimum sentence. Specifically, he argues the district court ignored his lack of serious criminal history and did not appropriately individualize his sentence. 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).
Geisler's sentence of two concurrent prison terms of two to five years is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 484B.550(3)(b), and Geisler does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. We note the district court commented on Geisler's lack of serious criminal history at sentencing but determined that a prison sentence was appropriate based on Geisler's escalating criminal history and his danger to the community. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Geisler on probation or by imposing more than the minimum sentence. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Bulla, C.J.
Gibbons, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 90322-COA
Decided: October 15, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)