JAMES v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

James claims the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the maximum sentence without first considering mitigating information. 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).

James’ sentence of 24 to 60 months in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 200.481(2)(b), and James does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Moreover, the record reflects that the district court heard argument from James’ counsel regarding the circumstances of the offense and James’ substance use issues, James’ allocution describing his substance use and mental health issues, and the court was informed that James had been accepted into a substance abuse treatment program before imposing his sentence. For these reasons, and having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing James. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.