HARVEY HAWTHORNE v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Appellant Arion Harvey-Hawthorne argues the district court erred in refusing to consider probation. This court will refrain from interfering with the sentence imposed “[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 Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (“The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence ․”).

Harvey-Hawthorne contends that the district court categorically refused to consider probation for the offense of voluntary manslaughter because a loss of life occurred. Harvey-Hawthorne argues that this was error because the offense of voluntary manslaughter is probationable. See NRS 176A.100(l)(c). The record demonstrates that the district court considered probation and found it inadvisable based on the facts of the case. And we are not convinced that the district court's decision was based on a categorical refusal to grant probation for any homicide offense. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.