COBIA v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Cobia contends the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to consecutive terms despite the State arguing for concurrent terms. It is within the district courts 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 district court noted Cobia had an extensive criminal history and also noted the violent nature of Cobia's crime. The district court sentenced Cobia to a term of 48 to 120 months in prison for the battery count and a consecutive term of 28 to 72 months in prison for the controlled substance count. The sentences imposed are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 176.035(1); NRS 200.481(2)(e)(1); NRS 453.321(2)(a). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Hunt to consecutive terms of prison. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.