Augello (Christopher) v. State C/W 64779

; 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