Case ID: nev_93/html/0550-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONNIE SHIELDS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
    No. 9856
    November 16, 1977
    571 P.2d 106
    
      Horace R. Goff, State Public Defender, and J. Thomas Susich, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.
    
      Robert List, Attorney General, and Patrick B. Walsh, Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent.
   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 or 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.