Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael Christopher WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Wright claims the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term instead of 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 18-to-48-month prison sentence imposed by the district court was within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See 1999 Nev. Stat., ch. 288, § 1, at 1186-87 (former NRS 193.130(2)(c)); 2011 Nev. Stat., ch. 41, § 15, at 164 (former NRS 205.228(2)). Moreover, Wright does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Having considered the record before this court, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Wright on probation. Therefore, this claim is without merit.
Wright also claims he is entitled to relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is generally inappropriate on direct appeal, and Wright has failed to demonstrate his claim falls into an exception to that general rule. See Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 883, 34 P.3d 519, 534 (2001) (“[W]e have generally declined to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal unless there has already been an evidentiary hearing or where an evidentiary hearing would be unnecessary.”), abrogated on other grounds by Rippo v. State, 134 Nev. 411, 423 n.12, 423 P.3d 1084, 1097 n.12 (2018). Thus, we decline to consider this claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 82905-COA
Decided: November 24, 2021
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)