Augello (Christopher) v. State C/W 64779 ( 2014 )

 ;
was not contingent upon providing substantial assistance. As to Augello's
.
sentence, this court will not disturb a district court's sentencing
determination absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 989, 12 P.3d at 957.
While Augello was sentenced to a prison term of 19 to 48 months, the
maximum possible sentence, it is within the parameters provided by the
relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable by
prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.690(2) (possession of a credit card
without consent punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not
allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. Further, Augello has not
demonstrated that the district court relied solely on impalpable or highly
suspect evidence. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161
(1976). We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion at sentencing.
In Docket No. 64779, Augello argues that the district court
abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing a consecutive sentence to
his sentence in Docket No. 64706. Further, Augello argues that the
district court failed to make findings in support of its sentencing decision.
We have consistently afforded the district court wide discretion in its
sentencing decision, see e.g., Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d
1376, 1379 (1987), and it is within that discretion to impose consecutive
sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). Here, the district court noted Augello's
prior criminal record, his drug abuse, and his history of committing crimes
to support his drug use before sentencing him to a consecutive prison term
of 19 to 48 months. The sentence falls within the parameters provided by
the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(d) (category D felony punishable
by prison term of 1 to 4 years); NRS 205.760(1) (fraudulent use of a credit
card punishable as a category D felony), and Augello does not allege that
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
those statutes are unconstitutional or that the district court relied on
impalpable or highly suspect evidence. See Silks, 92 Nev. at 94, 545 P.2d
at 1161. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at
sentencing. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
scat-A-er
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Washoe County Alternate Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COUFtT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I 947A