Opinion
87129-COA
07-26-2024
NATHAN WILLIAM GILE-PAGE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
GIBBONS, J.
Nathan William Gile-Page appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted statutory sexual seduction by person 21 or older. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County Tammy Riggs, Judge.
Gile-Page argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term instead of suspending his sentence and placing him on probation. Specifically, Gile-Page contends the district court did not give due consideration to his mitigating circumstances: he had no prior felony convictions or convictions for similar offenses; a qualified examiner found he did not pose a high risk to reoffend; a traumatic experience led him to abuse alcohol; and he had taken responsibility for his actions.
In this matter, the granting of probation 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 . . . ."). 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).
Gile-Page's sentence of 19 to 48 months in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant sentencing statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 193.153(1)(a)(3); NRS 200.368(1). Moreover, Gile-Page does not contend that the district court relied upon impalpable or highly suspect evidence in determining his sentence. Although Gile-Page contends several mitigating factors warranted suspending his sentence, Gile-Page argued these mitigating factors before the district court. The district court found that Gile-Page did not appear to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct and that he was a danger to the community, and it declined to suspend his sentence. Having considered the sentence and the crime, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to suspend the sentence and place Gile-Page on probation. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
BULLA, J., Westbrook, J.
Hon. Tammy Riggs, District Judge