Matlock (Carolyn) v. State

 must refrain from punishing a defendant for prior uncharged crimes."
Denson v. State, 112 Nev. 489, 494, 915 P.2d 284, 287 (1996).
At sentencing, the prosecutor stated that there is a "difference
between real-world proof and legal-world proof' and "everyone in [the]
room can understand what really happened." The prosecutor explained
that there was a long period of time where items went missing from the
victim's home, but there was no actual proof that Matlock went into the
home or knew someone who went in the home and that is why Matlock
was charged only with using the personal identification of another. The
prosecutor concurred with the Division's sentencing recommendation of a
suspended term of 12 to 34 months. The victim then gave an impact
statement in which she accused Matlock of committing numerous
uncharged theft crimes against her. Prior to imposing sentence, the judge
stated that he had considered all materials in the file; the victim-impact
statement; the purposes and policies of sentencing; Matlock's prior
criminal history, which included 11 or. 12 misdemeanor convictions; and
the plea negotiations. The judge sentenced Matlock to a term of 19 to 48
months, suspended the sentence, placed Matlock on probation for a period
not to exceed 60 months, and imposed several conditions of probation.
Although the sentence imposed in this case is the maximum
possible sentence, it is within the parameters provided by the relevant
statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(e); NRS 205.465(4), the district court is not
required to accept the recommendations of Parole and Probation, see Lloyd
v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 170, 576 P.2d 740, 742 (1978), and the imposition of
flat time as a condition of probation was within the district court's
discretion, see Haney v. State, 124 Nev. 408, 414 n.21, 185 P.3d 350, 354
n.21 (2008). The record does not demonstrate that the district court relied
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0 s 1947A aeo
only on impalpable and suspect evidence when imposing the sentence, and
we are not convinced that the sentence imPosed was intended to punish
Matlock for crimes with which she was not charged. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, J.
Pickering
—C244)1°6=916n1
Parraguirre Saitta
cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A