WALTER GILBERT RAYNES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Walter Gilbert Raynes appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of home invasion, first offense. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Chief Judge.

Raynes argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by relying on impalpable and highly suspect evidence. Specifically, he contends the district court relied on representations in the presentence investigation report (PSI) that he was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. He claims he disputed he was a member of the gang and analogizes his case to Goodson v. State, 98 Nev. 493, 496, 654 P.2d 1006, 1007 (1982), in which the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that statements in the defendant's PSI were unsupported by any evidence and that the defendant's sentence was improperly prejudiced by the sentencing court's heavy reliance on those statements.

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).

After Raynes was adjudicated a habitual criminal, the district court imposed a sentence of 8 to 20 years in prison, which is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See NRS 207.010(1)(a). And we conclude the district court did not rely on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Notably, unlike the defendant in Goodson, Raynes did not challenge the information contained in the PSI; rather, he confirmed he had reviewed the PSI and had no corrections or additions to the report. See Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. 243, 245, 255 P.3d 209, 211 (2011) (concluding that ‘‘any claimed inaccuracy in a PSI must be made to the district court at or before sentencing and, if not resolved in the defendant's favor, on direct appeal to this court after sentencing”). Further, the district court relied on Raynes's own representation in the PSI that he only assisted other gang members with paperwork while in prison. Lastly, the record shows the district court adjudicated Raynes a habitual criminal and sentenced him based on the risk he posed to the community, as demonstrated by his numerous criminal convictions and his failure to succeed on supervised release.

Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Raynes. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.