From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Narramore v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 15, 2019
No. 75591-COA (Nev. App. May. 15, 2019)

Opinion

No. 75591-COA

05-15-2019

MITRA PARISA NARRAMORE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Mitra Parisa Narramore appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of embezzlement of property valued at $3500 or more. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge.

Narramore argues the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by using uncharged restitution amounts as an aggravating factor in sentencing her and by considering the fact she did not pay any money toward restitution prior to sentencing.

The district court has wide discretion in its sentencing decision. See Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). We will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the district court "[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).

The district court sentenced Narramore to 36 to 90 months in prison, which was within the parameters of the relevant statutes. See NRS 205.300(1); NRS 205.222(3); NRS 193.130(2)(b). While it may have been inappropriate for the district court to classify the uncharged restitution amount as an "aggravator," see Benson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 494, 915 P.2d 284, 287 (1996) ("While a district court has wide discretion to consider prior uncharged crimes during sentencing, the district court must refrain from punishing a defendant for prior uncharged crimes."), the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering it when choosing an appropriate sentence. Martinez v. State, 114 Nev. 735, 738, 961 P.2d 143, 145 (1998) ("[a] sentencing judge [may] consider a wide, largely unlimited variety of information to insure that the punishment fits not only the crime, but also the individual defendant"); see also NRS 176.015(6). From statements made by the district court, it does not appear the district court punished Narramore for the uncharged restitution. Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering Narramore's failure to pay any restitution before the sentencing hearing. Narramore failed to demonstrate the district court based its sentencing decision on information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Bulla cc: Hon. Egan K. Walker, District Judge

Washoe County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Washoe District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Narramore v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 15, 2019
No. 75591-COA (Nev. App. May. 15, 2019)
Case details for

Narramore v. State

Case Details

Full title:MITRA PARISA NARRAMORE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: May 15, 2019

Citations

No. 75591-COA (Nev. App. May. 15, 2019)