From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castillo v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 17, 2016
No. 69450 (Nev. App. May. 17, 2016)

Opinion

No. 69450

05-17-2016

MANUEL DEZARIO CASTILLO, JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea of unlawful possession of a controlled substance for sale. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge.

Appellant Manuel Castillo, Jr., claims the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by not granting him probation because he was contrite, he had secured employment and moved to Elko, and his conviction was for marijuana—not methamphetamine.

The granting of probation is discretionary, NRS 176A.100(1)(c), and we 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).

Castillo's sentence of 19 to 48 months in prison falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(d); NRS 453.337(2)(a), and he does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. In rendering its sentencing decision, the district court informed Castillo "[t]his is a case in which you were selling drugs, and, regardless of your age, with your prior felony convictions and the offenses for which you plead guilty, I don't find today that [you are] an appropriate candidate for community supervision." We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Castillo on probation.

Castillo also claims the State should be sanctioned pursuant to NRAP 4(b)(5)(C) for failing to prepare the judgment of conviction within 10 days after sentencing as required by NRAP 4(b)(5)(A). Castillo suggests an appropriate sanction would be to void his judgment of conviction. However, Castillo has not alleged or demonstrated he was prejudiced by the untimely entry of the written judgment of conviction, and we conclude the sanction he seeks is unwarranted.

Having concluded Castillo is not entitled to relief, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Silver cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge

Humboldt County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Humboldt County District Attorney

Humboldt County Clerk


Summaries of

Castillo v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 17, 2016
No. 69450 (Nev. App. May. 17, 2016)
Case details for

Castillo v. State

Case Details

Full title:MANUEL DEZARIO CASTILLO, JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: May 17, 2016

Citations

No. 69450 (Nev. App. May. 17, 2016)