Shields v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Shields v. State

571 P.2d 106, 93 Nev. 550, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 622

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided November 16, 1977·No. No. 9856·Published

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this appeal, submitted pursuant to the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), it is argued that we should reverse because the parole and probation report contained unsubstantiated information, which was erroneously considered by the trial court when it sentenced Connie Shields. We disagree.

In Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976), we stated: “So long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable [551]*551or highly suspect evidence, this court will refrain from interfering with the sentence imposed.” Our review of the record reveals no such prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

In this appeal, submitted pursuant to the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), it is argued that we should reverse because the parole and probation report contained unsubstantiated information, which was erroneously considered by the trial court when it sentenced Connie Shields. We disagree.

In Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976), we stated: “So long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable [551]*551or highly suspect evidence, this court will refrain from interfering with the sentence imposed.” Our review of the record reveals no such prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.

Shields v. State, 571 P.2d 106, 93 Nev. 550, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 622 (Neb. 1977).

Pincite

571 P.2d 106 (Shields v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related