RYAN CHRISTOPHER WEEKS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ryan Christopher Weeks appeals two judgments of conviction. In Docket No. 91769-COA (CR23-0758), Weeks was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of grand larceny of a motor vehicle, first offense. In Docket No. 91770-COA (CR20-2013), Weeks was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of burglary. These cases were consolidated on appeal. NRAP 3(b). Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Hon. Egan K. Walker, Chief Judge.

Weeks argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing. Specifically, he contends the district court failed to give due consideration to his medical concerns before sentencing him to consecutive prison terms.

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).

The consecutive 12-to-48-month prison sentences imposed in these cases are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 488, § 1, at 2987; NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 205.228(2)(a). And Weeks does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. At sentencing, the district court stated it was considering Weeks’ medical concerns. The district court had previously granted Weeks’ request for a release so that he could seek treatment for his medical concerns, but instead of complying with the release conditions, Weeks violated the conditions and failed to appear for the hearing on those violations. The district court also noted Weeks’ seven prior felony convictions, one gross misdemeanor, and 18 misdemeanors. Having considered the sentences and the crimes, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.