KOUE v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Koue argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing when it imposed a term of imprisonment that was higher than the parties’ jointly recommended term. In support of his argument. Koue contends the district court rejected his assertion at the sentencing hearing that he had been sober and free from incarceration or violations for three years despite the presentence investigation report (PSI) corroborating this assertion. He also claims the district court did not consider or address the compelling mitigation arguments he made in favor of the joint sentencing recommendation.

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 district court's sentence of 32 to 84 months’ imprisonment is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 484C.410(1), and Koue does not demonstrate the district court considered accusations or information founded on facts supported only by highly suspect or impalpable evidence. The district court's comment about not seeing a period in Koue's history that was free from incarceration was immediately followed by the district court's listing of Koue's criminal history, which included 19 misdemeanors, 2 gross misdemeanors, and 3 felonies. Additionally, the PSI indicated Koue had been to jail numerous times and prison twice. As to Koue's argument that the district court did not consider or address his mitigation arguments, the record does not reflect that the district court ignored evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, and the district court was not required to articulate its sentencing reasons on the record. See Campbell v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 114Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998). Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Koue's sentence, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.