DANIEL EMILIO EVANGELISTI v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Daniel Emilio Evangelisti appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior felony driving under the influence conviction. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen A. Sigurdson, Judge.

Evangelisti argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 36-to-90-month prison sentence instead of a lesser sentence. He contends that the district court posited it was obligated to impose a longer prison sentence for the purpose of keeping the community “as safe [as] possible” and that this amounted to reliance on impalpable and highly suspect evidence.

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).

The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See NRS 484C.410(1). And Evangelisti fails to identify any facts relied on by the district court that were supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Prior to imposing Evangelisti's sentence, the district court listened to the arguments of the parties and to reports about Evangelisti's compliance with Pretrial Services. Evangelisti argued he had recently learned his mother was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer; had a long period of sobriety prior to relapsing; and had committed no new crimes between his last felony conviction in 2008 and the instant offense. The State discussed Evangelisti's criminal history, including a prior DUI conviction where a person died, and argued for a 36-to-90-month prison sentence based on its position that Evangelisti “is an incredible danger to the community.” Prior to imposing his sentence, the district court noted Evangelisti's “serious” criminal history and acknowledged that Evangelisti's mother's illness did “not excuse drinking and driving.” Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing Evangelisti's sentence. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.