488 P3D 579 - Baker (Joey) Vs. State

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


JOEY CARL BAKER, A/K/A JOSEPH                           No. 81837
CARL BAKER,
Appellant,                                                  FILE
VS.

THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                        JUN 1 1 2021
Res iondent.                                               EUZAB A. BROWN
                                                                      E
                                                        CIE
                                                       BY
                                                              EPUTY CLERK
                        ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
            This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
guilty plea, of felon in possession of a firearm.' Sixth Judicial District
Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge. The district court
sentenced appellant to 12-34 months but suspended the sentence and
placed him on probation. As a condition of probation, the district court
prohibited appellant from using marijuana.
            Appellant challenges the ban on marijuana use as a probation
condition, arguing that he presented evidence of his need for medical
marijuana along with his medical marijuana registration card. In light of
this evidence he asserts that the district court's decision is arbitrary and
capricious and therefore an abuse of discretion. He further argues that NRS
176A.420 (2020), which allows the district court to drug test persons on
probation, is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits medical marijuana use.
            We conclude that the district court did not abuse the wide
discretion afforded to it by prohibiting appellant from using marijuana as a
condition of his probation. See NRS 176A.400(1) (providing that the district


       'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.




                                                             21-it
court may, "without limitation," place terms and conditions on any grant of
probation); Houk v. State,

103 Nev. 659, 664

747 P.2d 1376, 1379

 (1987)
(The sentencing judge has wide discretion in imposing a sentence . . . .);
see also Jackson v. State

117 Nev. 116, 120

17 P.3d 998, 1000

 (2001) ("An
abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is arbitrary or
capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason."). The sentence was
within the statutory limits, see NRS 202.360(1), and appellant does not
allege that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect
evidence, see Denson v. State,

112 Nev. 489, 492

915 P.2d 284, 286

 (1996)
(reiterating that this court "will reverse a sentence if it is supported solely
by impalpable and highly suspect evidence"). Additionally, appellant did
not carry his burden of clearly showing that NRS 176A.420 is
unconstitutional. See Silvar v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,

122 Nev. 289, 292

129 P.3d 682, 684

 (2006) CStatutes are presumed to be valid, and the
challenger bears the burden of showing that a statute is unconstitutional
[by] mak[ing] a clear showing of invalidity."). We therefore,
            ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
                                      4.

                              W
                         Cadish
                                                    , J.




                           , J.                                         J.
                                            Herndon


cc:   Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
      Humboldt County Public Defender
      Attorney General/Carson City
      Humboldt County District Attorney
      Humboldt County Clerk


                                      2