NOBLES v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Nobles contends the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by failing to give due consideration to his mitigating arguments and 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).

Nobles’ prison sentence of 24 to 60 months is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 200.481(2)(b). And Nobles does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Before imposing sentence, the district court read the presentence investigation report and heard the defense's mitigating argument, including representations regarding Nobles’ substance abuse and his adverse childhood. There is no indication the district court failed to consider these arguments or any mitigating evidence before it. In light of these circumstances, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Nobles. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.