Preview:

sentence. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1189, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008); Brake, 113 Nev. at 585, 939 P.3d at 1033. Williams also contends that the district court abused its discretion in its determination of the restitution award. We agree. A district court must rely on reliable and accurate information in calculating a restitution award and its determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12-13, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999). Here, Williams objected during the sentencing hearing and argued that "there is no documentation to prove" the $2563 restitution award. Our review of the record reveals that the only evidence provided at sentencing regarding the restitution amount was the victim's testimony that he "got shots for [his injury] at St. Mary's" and a statement in the presentence investigation report that Victims of Crime reported paying $2563 to the victim for medical and moving expenses. This information is not a sufficient factual basis upon which to base a restitution award. Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution without sufficient evidence, see and we vacate the restitution award and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to conduct a restitution hearing. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Acc,

J.

J.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2
(0) 1947A

4Wa4rIFZ-411e.F.4

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, 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
"

!'IraTr:r-IPVZMY-,lk VIrafk:W 5 7:-Kr .=,YAMMIIMMRC.13,F5TMEMINIERMEMINVOINIMEMMEMESEMBEESSENNIMIMPSOM .



Download 60303.pdf

Nevada Law