Winship (Michelle) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 Prison. The district court is afforded considerable discretion in imposing a
    sentence, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
    discretion.   Randell v. State, 
    109 Nev. 5
    , 8, 
    846 P.2d 278
    , 280 (1993).
    Abuse of discretion will be found only when the record shows "prejudice
    resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on
    facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence."      Silks v.
    State, 
    92 Nev. 91
    , 94, 
    545 P.2d 1159
    , 1161 (1976). Appellant does not
    argue that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect
    evidence; therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion.
    Third, appellant contends that her sentence was
    disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the
    sentences imposed on her codefendants, constituting cruel and unusual
    punishment. A sentence that falls within the statutory guidelines is not
    considered cruel and unusual unless the statute is unconstitutional or the
    sentence is "so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock
    the conscience."   Blume v. State, 
    112 Nev. 472
    , 475, 
    915 P.2d 282
    , 284
    (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no legal requirement
    that codefendants be sentenced to identical terms.   Nobles v. Warden, 
    106 Nev. 67
    , 68, 
    787 P.2d 390
    , 391 (1990) (emphasizing that "sentencing is an
    individualized process").
    Appellant does not allege that the relevant statutes are
    unconstitutional, and her sentence falls within the statutory guidelines.
    See NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 205.270(1)(a). The instant offense involved
    appellant taking a wallet, as her codefendants distracted the victim, and
    then backing a vehicle into a bystander as she fled the scene. We conclude
    that the sentence imposed is not unreasonably disproportionate to the
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    WIC
    offense and therefore does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the conviction AFFIRMED.
    J.
    Hardesty
    Parraguirre
    J.
    cc:   Hon. Steven P. Elliott, District Judge
    Michael V. Roth
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 62004

Filed Date: 4/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014