Case Name: CONNIE SHIELDS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1977-11-16
Citations: 93 Nev. 550
Docket Number: No. 9856
Parties: CONNIE SHIELDS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
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:
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.