Geiger (Michael) v. State C/W 66115

Nevada Supreme Court

Geiger (Michael) v. State C/W 66115

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket66104

StatusUnpublished

This text of Geiger (Michael) v. State C/W 66115 (Geiger (Michael) v. State C/W 66115) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geiger (Michael) v. State C/W 66115, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

that the sentences run concurrently). The district court is afforded wide discretion in its sentencing decision, see Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and absent sole reliance on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, we will not interfere with the district court's imposition of a sentence within statutory guidelines, see Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Geiger does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence nor that his sentence of 2 to 5 years falls outside the statutory parameters, see NRS 193.130; NRS 205.273(4). Moreover, it is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). We disagree with Geiger's argument that his consecutive sentence violates the purpose of NRS 176.035(1) and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Next, Geiger claims that his convictions for possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent and fraudulent use of a credit or debit card in district court case no. CR13-1712 violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. He argues that possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent is a lesser-included offense of fraudulent use of a credit or debit card and he cannot be convicted of both. The State concedes the error, and we agree. See Moore v. State, 122 Nev. 27, 35, 126 P.3d 508, 513 (2006). Therefore, we reverse the portion of the judgment of conviction in district court case no. CR13-1712 adjudicating Geiger guilty of being in possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent and remand for the district court to correct the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction in Docket No. 66104 AFFIRMED and the judgment of conviction in Docket No. 66115

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0') I 047A oe AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

/-4tA,Sat..1 Hardesty

ho4 J. J. Douglas Cherry

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 3 (0) I947A i4IP94

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

that the sentences run concurrently). The district court is afforded wide discretion in its sentencing decision, see Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and absent sole reliance on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, we will not interfere with the district court's imposition of a sentence within statutory guidelines, see Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Geiger does not allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence nor that his sentence of 2 to 5 years falls outside the statutory parameters, see NRS 193.130; NRS 205.273(4). Moreover, it is within the district court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). We disagree with Geiger's argument that his consecutive sentence violates the purpose of NRS 176.035(1) and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Next, Geiger claims that his convictions for possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent and fraudulent use of a credit or debit card in district court case no. CR13-1712 violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. He argues that possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent is a lesser-included offense of fraudulent use of a credit or debit card and he cannot be convicted of both. The State concedes the error, and we agree. See Moore v. State, 122 Nev. 27, 35, 126 P.3d 508, 513 (2006). Therefore, we reverse the portion of the judgment of conviction in district court case no. CR13-1712 adjudicating Geiger guilty of being in possession of a credit and/or debit card without consent and remand for the district court to correct the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction in Docket No. 66104 AFFIRMED and the judgment of conviction in Docket No. 66115