SEARS v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Docket No. 91355 is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in district court case number CR25-0814, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of driver evading, eluding or failing to stop on the signal of a peace officer, endangering person or property. Docket No. 91364 is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in district court case number CR25-0147B, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of injuring, marking or defacing school property, value $5,000 or greater.

Sears argues the district court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive prison sentences in these cases rather than granting his request for probation. Sears argues the imposition of consecutive prison sentences was an abuse of discretion because his prior criminal history was primarily limited to nonviolent traffic offenses, the instant offenses were directly related to his substance abuse issues, and a substance abuse evaluator recommended structured treatment and intensive court supervision rather than incarceration.

The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decisions, and the granting of probation in these cases 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 ․”). Further, it is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See NRS 176.035(1); Pitmon v. State, 131 Nev. 123, 128-29, 352 P.3d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2015); Warden v. Peters, 83 Nev. 298, 303, 429 P.2d 549, 552 (1967). Generally, this court will not interfere with sentences imposed by the district court that fall 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 prison sentence of 19 to 48 months in Docket No. 91355 is within the parameters provided by NRS 484B.550(3)(b), and the prison sentence of 19 to 48 months in Docket No. 91364 is likewise within the parameters provided by NRS 393.410(1)(a) and NRS 193.155(1). Additionally, Sears does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Finally, the district court is not required to follow the sentencing recommendations of the parties. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 168, 171, 494 P.2d 956, 957 (1972). Having considered the sentences and the crimes, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining Sears’ request for probation and imposing consecutive prison sentences. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.