Opinion
No. 70560
04-19-2017
CANDICE MARIE ANDERSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Appellant Candice Marie Anderson appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of abuse, neglect, or endangerment. of a child causing substantial bodily harm. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge.
Anderson argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing her to serve a prison term rather than a term of probation because she was not determined to be a high risk to reoffend, she was remorseful, and she had a negligible criminal history. We review a district court's sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). We "will reverse a sentence if it is supported solely by impalpable and highly suspect evidence." Denson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 492, 915 P.2d 284, 286 (1996).
We reject the State's assertion that NRS 177.015(4) statutorily bars this claim. NRS 177.015(4) permits a defendant to appeal from a final judgment resulting from a guilty plea if "the appeal is based upon reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional or other grounds that challenge the legality of the proceedings." Further, Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 979 P.2d 222 (1999), identifies "a challenge to the sentence imposed on constitutional or other grounds" as a claim that may be raised on direct appeal from a final judgment resulting from a guilty plea. --------
A review of the record reveals the district court did not base its sentencing decision on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. The district court heard the arguments of counsel and the evidence submitted at the sentencing hearing, including victim impact statements regarding the lifelong difficulties faced by Anderson's daughter as a result of the abuse inflicted upon her, and concluded a prison term of 96 to 240 months was the appropriate sentence. See NRS 200.508(1)(a)(2). Further, the decision to deny Anderson's request for probation was within the district court's discretion. See NRS 176A.100(1)(c). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, and we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Humboldt County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
Humboldt County Clerk