Fluker (Robert) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             Second, Fluker contends that the district court abused its
    discretion and "abdicated the sentencing calculus" by simply following the
    State's recommendation and imposing an excessive sentence without
    considering the mitigating factors. Fluker also claims that by imposing
    the maximum sentence, "the district court effectively usurped the
    knowledge and authority of the parole board to determine if [he] could be
    rehabilitated earlier and be released earlier." We disagree.
    This court will not disturb a district court's sentencing
    determination absent an abuse of discretion.     Parrish v. State, 
    116 Nev. 982
    , 989, 
    12 P.3d 953
    , 957 (2000). Fluker failed to demonstrate that the
    district court relied solely on impalpable or highly suspect evidence.   See
    Chavez v. State, 
    125 Nev. 328
    , 347-48, 
    213 P.3d 476
    , 489-90 (2009).
    Fluker's consecutive prison terms of 72-180 months, 96-240 months, and
    72-180 months fall within the parameters provided by the relevant
    statutes, see NRS 200.380(2); NRS 193.167(1), it is within the district
    court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1),
    and the sentence imposed is not so unreasonably disproportionate to the
    gravity of the offenses as to shock the conscience, see CuIverson v. State,
    
    95 Nev. 433
    , 435, 
    596 P.2d 220
    , 221-22 (1979); see also Harmelin v.
    Michigan, 
    501 U.S. 957
    , 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). The record
    does not support Fluker's claim that the district court either failed to
    consider the mitigating factors or abdicated its duty by adopting the
    State's sentence recommendation. Fluker further failed to offer any
    persuasive argument in support of his claim that the district court
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    "usurped the knowledge and authority of the parole board" by imposing
    the maximum sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse
    its discretion at sentencing, and we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    "
    ,
    Erg                                         J.
    Douglas                                            Saitta
    cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
    Cynthia C. Lu, Esq.
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    ii[2' 714*
    .        41. tf.:
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 61703

Filed Date: 5/15/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014