Case Name: ANDREW THOMAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1983-10-19
Citations: 99 Nev. 757
Docket Number: No. 13941
Parties: ANDREW THOMAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
ANDREW THOMAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
No. 13941
October 19, 1983
670 P.2d 111
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and E. Lee Thomson, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.
Brian McKay, Attorney General, Carson City; Robert J. Miller, District Attorney, and James Tufteland, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for burglary and grand larceny. Appellant Thomas contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the district court abused its discretion in determining his sentence. We disagree with the first contention, but agree with the second. We therefore affirm Thomas' conviction, but reverse and remand as to the sentence.
After Thomas was convicted, the Department of Parole and Probation recommended that the district court place him on probation. Relying on the fact that Thomas continued to maintain his innocence, however, the court rejected this recommendation and instead sentenced Thomas to concurrent four year terms. The court stated:
I am a little surprised at the recommendation of the [Probation] Department. This man still stands before this Court claiming his innocence. He was seen by neighbors at the scene of the crime. Furniture was removed from the house and left on the front lawn. He still tells us, however, that he just happened to be there with these other persons who were having a bad influence upon him.
If he were man enough to admit his guilt, that might be one thing, but he was given a fair trial. . . .
Thomas contends, and we agree, that in relying on the fact that Thomas refused to admit guilt, the district court abused its discretion in determining a sentence. See Bushnell v. State, 97 Nev. 591, 637 P.2d 529 (1981). The sentence therefore cannot stand.
We have also considered Thomas' contentions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, and we conclude that they are without merit. See Merryman v. State, 95 Nev. 648, 601 P.2d 53 (1979); People v. Zallar, 553 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1976). Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
We affirm that part of the judgment finding Thomas guilty of burglary and grand larceny. We reverse that part of the judgment sentencing Thomas to concurrent four-year terms, and we remand this case for resentencing.