Ligon (Dion) v. State

opportunity to make a statement during his interview and he declined, insisting on the presence of counsel. However, Ligon was not entitled to the assistance of counsel during the presentence interview. See Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 578 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that the presentence interview in a noncapital case was not a critical stage of the proceedings necessitating the assistance of counsel). But see United States v. Herrera Figueroa, 918 F.2d 1430, 1431, 1433 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying -

its supervisory power, the court held that the probation officer must honor a request by a defendant that counsel be present at the interview). Further, the district court provided Ligon the opportunity to bring relevant information to its attention at the sentencing hearing. Although the PSI did not contain the information that Ligon wanted it to contain, he did not demonstrate that it contained impalpable or highly suspect evidence. See Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. , , 255 P.3d 209, 213 (2011) ("[T]he PSI must not include information based on 'impalpable or highly suspect evidence." (quoting Goodson v. State, 98 Nev. 493, 495-96, 654 P.2d 1006, 1007 (1982))). As to his assertion regarding the allegation of gang affiliation, the record does not indicate that the district court based its sentencing decision on this allegation. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976) (noting that this court will refrain from interfering with a sentence "[s] long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A sera

only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence"). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

,

Hardesty

Douglas

cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge Legal Resource Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) 1947A cein