HSIEH v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Hsieh claims the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him because it considered factual allegations supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence in the victim's impact statement that he committed acts of violence against other women. 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 victim submitted an impact statement in advance of the sentencing hearing. In addition to addressing Hsieh's criminal conduct in the instant matter and the impact that conduct had on her, the victim alleged Hsieh had committed similar acts of violence against other women. The district court stated it had read the victim's impact statement and found her allegations regarding Hsieh's conduct towards other women “suspect,” and therefore would not consider those allegations in imposing sentence. The district court reiterated later in the sentencing hearing that it was “not going to take [the victim's allegations regarding violence against other women] into consideration.” Upon imposing sentence on Hsieh, the district court specified it was relying only on Hsieh's letters of support, his statement attached to the presentence investigation report (PSI), the offense synopsis in the PSI, Hsieh's criminal history, and the victim's impact statement.¹ The district court then sentenced Hsieh to a prison term of 48 to 120 months for the home invasion count and a concurrent prison term of 24 to 60 months for the attempted coercion count.

The sentences imposed are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 193.153(1)(a)(3); NRS 205.067(2); NRS 207.190(2). Considering the record before this court, we conclude Hsieh fails to demonstrate that the district court considered any information or accusations that were based on facts supported only by highly suspect or impalpable evidence and thus failed to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion when imposing his sentence. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Given the district court's repeated statements that it was not considering the unsubstantiated allegations in the victim's impact statement, we interpret the district court's statement about considering the victim's statement to refer only to the portions of the victim's impact statement that discussed Hsieh's conduct in the instant matter.