RODRIGUEZ v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Rodriguez argues the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating evidence. Specifically, he claims the district court did not consider that he had a limited and stale criminal history, he was losing his sight, the charges may have been fabricated, and the Division of Parole and Probation recommended a sentence of 30 to 96 months. Further, Rodriguez claimed the district court abused its discretion by failing to articulate its reasons for imposing the sentence of 84 to 210 months in prison.

The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decision. See Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376 1379 (1987). We will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the district court that falls within the parameters of relevant sentencing statutes “[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 is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.330(1)(a)(1); NRS 200.366(3). And Rodriguez does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. The sentencing judge heard argument from the parties and stated she reviewed the case and “looked over everything” prior to imposing the sentence. Further, the district court was not required to articulate its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. See Campbell v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998).³ Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rodriguez. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

3.   Rodriguez argues that this court should overrule prior opinions stating that the sentencing court is not required to articulate its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. However, this court cannot overrule Nevada Supreme Court precedent. See People v. Solorzano, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659, 664 (Ct. App. 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”).