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