MIGHTY v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Caven Mighty appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of coercion. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Lynne K. Simons, Judge.

Mighty contends the district court abused its discretion at sentencing because it failed to address or show it had considered any of the mitigation information he provided. The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decision. See NRS 176.035(1); Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). We will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the district court that falls within the parameters of the 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).

The district court indicated it had considered Mighty's mitigating factors by acknowledging having received the presentence investigation report and documents Mighty submitted. The sentence imposed, 24 to 60 months in prison, is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See NRS 207.190(2)(a). And Mighty does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mighty. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.