MUNOZ v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Munoz claims the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive prison sentences for all three grand larceny counts despite the parties’ arguments for a lesser sentence. It is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See NRS 176.035(1); Pitmon v. State, 131 Nev. 123, 128-29, 352 P.3d 655, 659 (Ct. App. 2015); see also Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (“The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence ․”). 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); see Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998).

Munoz was sentenced to 19 to 48 months in prison for each count, and these sentences are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(d); NRS 205.222(2)(a). Munoz does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Further, the district court is not required to follow the sentencing recommendations of the parties. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 168, 171, 494 P.2d 956, 957 (1972). Having considered the sentences and the crimes, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Munoz's sentences. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.