MAXFIELD v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Maxfield contends the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term rather than probation. The granting of probation is discretionary. See NRS 176A.100(1)(c); 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 listened to the arguments of the parties and, noting Maxfield's seven prior felonies, concluded that probation was not appropriate in this matter. Maxfield's sentence of 24 to 60 months in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 205.273(3), and Maxfield does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Maxfield on probation. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.