BELL v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Robert Allen Bell, Sr., appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, burglary, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle valued at $3,500 or more. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge.

Bell speculates the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him as it did. Bell does not identify with particularity how the district court abused its discretion, but instead asks this court to fashion a rule requiring district courts to explain why they are imposing a particular sentence. Because the district court was not required to state its reasons for imposing a particular sentence, see Campbell v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998), Bell's claim is without merit.¹ Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Bell asks this court to overrule Campbell, we are without the authority to do so. See People v. Solorzano, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659, 664 (2007), as modified (Aug. 15, 2007) (“The Court of Appeal must follow, and has no authority to overrule, the decisions of the California Supreme Court.” (quotation marks and internal punctuation omitted)); see also Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 720 (1995) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (observing stare decisis “applies a fortiori to enjoin lower courts to follow the decision of a higher court”).