alleged that the chain and pendant were among the items stolen, he did

not clarify at the plea canvass or in the written plea agreement that he was not pleading guilty to taking the chain and pendant, and he agreed to make full restitution as ordered by the court, we conclude the district court did not err by ordering Carpenter to pay restitution for the chain and pendant.

Carpenter also claims that the restitution amount of $8,500 is not supported by sufficient evidence. Carpenter asserts that the victim's testimony, alone, was insufficient to establish the value of the chain and pendant because the victim's opinion regarding value was based on his Internet search for the price of gold.

Restitution is a sentencing determination that this court will generally not disturb unless it rests upon impalpable or highly suspect evidence. Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12-13, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999). A district court must rely on reliable and accurate information in calculating a restitution award. Id. at 13, 974 P.2d 135. "An owner of property may testify to its value, at least so long as the owner has personal knowledge, or the ability to provide expert proof, of value." Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. „ 262 P.3d 727, 731 (2011) (internal citation omitted).

At the restitution hearing, the victim requested restitution in the amount of $8,500 and testified that the missing chain was 22 carat gold, weighed 65 grams, and was valued at $6,500 and the missing pendant was 24 carat gold and weighed 35 grams. The victim testified that neither item had been appraised and he established the value of the chain and pendant based on the weight of each item and by looking up the price of gold on the Internet. He further testified that he was familiar

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2,J.

Douglas Saitta with the price of gold and the value of his jewelry because in his culture people keep jewelry to give to a daughter and daughter-in-law as a dowry. Although Carpenter argued that the victim's valuation of his jewelry was not reliable because of inconsistencies in the valuations assigned by the victim, the district court found that the victim's testimony regarding the value of his jewelry was credible and reliable.

Although the victim relied on the Internet to assist him in valuing his missing jewelry, given the victim's knowledge of the jewelry, including its approximate weight, the record does not support Carpenter's assertion that the victim relied solely on an outside source to establish the value of his jewelry. Further, contrary to Carpenter's assertion on appeal, the Division of Parole and Probation's estimate of what they would be seeking as restitution and the amount paid to the victim from his insurance company did not establish the value of the missing jewelry. Given the district court's credibility determination, we conclude that the district court relied on reasonably reliable and accurate evidence when setting restitution and we affirm the award of restitution. Therefore, we

ORDER the amended /

judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3