WILLHOIT v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Willhoit argues the district court abused its discretion by straying from the parties’ sentencing recommendation, failing to give due consideration to his mitigating evidence, and imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 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); see Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998).

The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 200.030(4)(b)(1), and Willhoit does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. As Willhoit acknowledged in the plea agreement and at the plea canvass, the district court was not obligated to follow the parties’ sentencing recommendation. See NRS 174.035(4) (providing the parties “may enter into a written conditional plea agreement, subject to the court accepting the recommended sentence pursuant to the agreement” (emphasis added)); cf. Cripps v. State, 122 Nev. 764, 771, 137 P.3d 1187, 1191-92 (2006). And regarding the mitigating evidence, the district court heard argument by counsel at the sentencing hearing and commented that it “was very careful to read everything that was available to [it] in the file,” which would have included Willhoit's pretrial motions ¹ and sentencing memorandum. Nothing in the record indicates the district court failed to consider Willhoit's argument and evidence.

Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Willhoit, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We reject Willhoit's argument that the district court failed to consider mitigating evidence when it vacated a pretrial motions hearing after Willhoit pleaded guilty. In vacating the hearing, the district court commented that Willhoit was not prevented from raising issues in the motions at the time of sentencing, to which counsel commented, “[t]hen I believe that we can vacate those hearings.”