MAYANK v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mayank argues the district court abused its discretion by not granting probation and instead imposing consecutive prison sentences. Mayank contends the district court did not consider his mitigating evidence that he lacked any prior criminal history, he did not present a high risk to reoffend, and that the crimes occurred on the same day. Further, Mayank claims the district court failed to place its reasons for not granting probation and imposing consecutive prison sentences on the record.

The granting of probation in this case was 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 ․”). It is also 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), and 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).

Mayank's consecutive sentences of 36 to 96 months in prison and 24 to 60 months in prison are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 200.368(1); NRS 200.508(1)(b)(1), and Mayank does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Mayank fails to demonstrate that the district court did not consider his mitigating evidence or inform Mayank why it was imposing the particular sentence.¹ The district court specifically stated it considered the fact Mayank did not have any prior criminal history. Further, the district court informed Mayank that it was his conduct and the facts of the crimes that caused the district court to believe probation was not an appropriate sentence and that consecutive prison sentences were warranted. Given this record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Mayank on probation and by imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note the district court was not required to place its reasoning for imposing the sentence on the record. See Campbell v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998).