MIELE v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Miele claims the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by failing to consider the mitigating information that had already been considered by the prosecutor in reaching her charging decision. The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decision. See Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379(1987). Generally, this court 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 u. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976).

Miele's sentence of 28 to 72 months in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute. See NRS 207.190(2)(a). And Miele does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Miele. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.