Cota v. State, 031920 NVCA, 77414-COA
|Docket Nº:||77414-COA, 77415-COA|
|Party Name:||MICHAEL LUIS COTA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. MICHAEL LUIS COTA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Tao J., Bulla J. Hon. Thomas W. Gregory, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||March 19, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
These are Michael Luis Cota's consolidated appeals from two judgments of conviction. Cota was convicted pursuant to guilty pleas of battery by a prisoner in custody in district court case number 18-CR-0116 (Docket No. 77414-COA) and principal to grand larceny of a firearm in district court case number 18-CR-0084 (Docket No. 77415-COA). Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; Thomas W. Gregory, Judge.
Cota claims the district court abused its discretion by admitting and considering his juvenile record at sentencing for both of his cases. He argues the State violated the law governing the confidentiality of juvenile records by obtaining his juvenile record without a juvenile court order. And he asserts his juvenile record consists of impalpable and highly suspect information.
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). The district court may "consider a wide, largely unlimited variety of information to insure that the punishment fits not only the crime, but also the individual defendant." Martinez v. State, 114 Nev. 735, 738, 961 P.2d 143, 145 (1998); see also NRS 176.015(6). This includes a defendant's juvenile record, see Thomas v. State, 88 Nev. 382, 385, 498 P.2d 1314, 1316 (1972), see also NRS 62H.030(3)(b); NRS 62H. 170(3), and even hearsay, see NRS 47.020(3)(c). However, 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).
Prior to sentencing, the district court made specific findings that the State's exhibits could lawfully be disseminated to a court for sentencing purposes, they were relevant to the court's sentencing determination, they were not unfairly prejudicial, and they did not contain impalpable or highly suspect information. And during sentencing, the district court...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP