Estes (Kyle) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided May 13, 2014·No. 64449·Unpublished

Opinion

consecutive sentences, and we decline Estes' invitation to compel such a requirement. See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 333, 996 P.2d 890, 893 (2000) (noting that "this court has never required the district courts to utter 'talismanic' phrases" and instead "looks to the record as a whole to determine whether the sentencing court actually exercised its discretion"). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J.

Hardesty

Douglas

J.

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Estes (Kyle) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Estes (Kyle) v. State (Estes (Kyle) v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Houk v. State
747 P.2d 1376 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1987)
Hughes v. State
996 P.2d 890 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2000)