BRADY v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Brady argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing his sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed in a separate case. Brady argues that doing so delays his ability to enter drug rehabilitation. 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); see also Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (“The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence ․”). This court will refrain from interfering with the sentence imposed “[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 sentence imposed in this case of 19 to 48 months is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 205.273(3); NRS 193.130(2)(c). Moreover, because Brady does not allege—nor does the record reflect—the district court's reliance on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when imposing Brady's sentence, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.