Opinion ID: 1448365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The district court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant.

Text: We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Troy by (1) using the Lakes Crossing psychological reports as a basis for the sentence and (2) imposing a harsher sentence because Troy maintained his innocence and refused to admit his guilt. However, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in referring to the post-guilt-phase DNA testing and results. A sentencing judge is allowed wide discretion in imposing a sentence; absent an abuse of discretion, the district court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal. Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). [I]f the judge relies upon prejudicial matters, such reliance constitutes an abuse of discretion that necessitates a resentencing hearing before a different judge. Castillo v. State, 110 Nev. 535, 545, 874 P.2d 1252, 1259 (1994).