VALDEZ v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Valdez argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to serve a prison term rather than assigning him to a program of treatment for his issues related to substance abuse. Valdez contends the district court failed to consider his individual circumstances when it imposed sentence.

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 v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976).

The district court listened to the arguments of the parties. It noted that Valdez had two prior felony convictions for drug-related offenses and Valdez had not performed well when he was on probation or parole. The district court decided to impose a prison term but informed Valdez that it hoped ho would continue the work he is doing to improve himself. The district court imposed a term of 19 to 48 months in prison, which was within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(e); NRS 453.336(2)(a). Valdez does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Additionally, the district court's decision to deny Valdez's request for assignment to a program of treatment was within its discretion. See NRS 176A.230. Considering the record before this court, we conclude Valdez fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion when imposing his sentence. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.