plea under the terms of that agreement. Instead, a new plea agreement
was filed on November 5, 2012, and Garza entered his plea pursuant to
that agreement on the same day. Garza includes only the September 7,
2012, agreement in the appendix.
Garza next contends that the district court abused its
discretion by declining to suspend his prison term of 28 to 70 months and
place him on probation. He also asserts that the minimum sentence
should be 13 months, in accordance with the Division of Parole and
Probation's sentence recommendation selection scale. We disagree.
Garza's sentence is within the statutory limits, see NRS
484B.550(3)(b), and it is within the district court's discretion to deny
probation, NRS 176A.100(1)(c), or impose a sentence different from that
recommended by the Division, Collins v. State, 88 Nev. 168, 171, 494 P.2d
956, 957 (1972). To the extent Garza contends that the district court
abused its discretion by relying on a probation probability success sheet
"obviously completed incorrectly" by the Division, we disagree. Garza fails
to demonstrate that the Division incorrectly filled out the sheet.
Moreover, the record does not reflect that the district court relied solely on
the sheet when imposing Garza's sentence. See Denson v. State, 112 Nev.
489, 492, 915 P.2d 284, 286 (1996) (this court will reverse a sentence if it
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
is based solely on highly suspect and impalpable evidence). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1
Gibbons
Ahrs..s J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Humboldt County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
Humboldt County Clerk
lAlthough we filed the fast track briefs submitted by the parties,
they fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. Neither
brief contains margins of at least 1 inch on all four sides, and the footnotes
in the fast track statement are not in the same size and typeface as the
brief. See NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4)-(5). We caution counsel for the
parties that future failure to comply with the rules of this court may result
in the imposition of sanctions. NRAP 3C(n).
3