ALEGRIA v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Alegria claims the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. She claims the district court failed to properly consider her mental health history.

We review a district court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). We will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the district court “[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). NRS 176.035(1) plainly gives the district court discretion to run sentences consecutively. Pitmon v. State,131 Nev. 123, 128-29, 352 P.3d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2015).

Here, Alegria's sentences fall within the parameters of the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.165(1); NRS 200.030(4)(b)(1); NRS 205.010. Alegria has not alleged the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. And the record shows that the district court heard information about Alegria's history of mental health issues, considered her history, considered the impact of her actions on her family, and considered the facts and circumstances of the crimes before it rendered its sentencing decision. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.