Opinion
No. 65278
07-22-2014
EDWARD BOECHAT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of felon in possession of an electronic stun device. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge.
Appellant Edward Boechat contends that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term of 24 to 60 months without explaining its reasons for the sentence. We disagree. The district court is afforded wide discretion in its sentencing decision, see Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and absent reliance on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, we will not interfere with the court's imposition of a sentence within statutory guidelines. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Boechat does not argue that his sentence falls outside the statutory parameters, see NRS 202.357(5)(a), or that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. As to his contention that the failure to articulate reasons for the sentence demonstrates an abuse of discretion, we decline to impose such a requirement upon the district court. See Campbell v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998). Accordingly, we
Pursuant to negotiations, the State agreed to recommend a term of 24 to 60 months and to not pursue other charges or enhancements.
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk