Williams (Mathew) v. State ( 2013 )

 argues that the statute violates the constitutional proscription against
cruel and unusual punishment because it imposes a sentence that is
disproportionate to the offense, is greater than necessary to meet society's
interests, and is overly severe when compared with the sentences imposed
by other jurisdictions.
Because Williams has not demonstrated that the Legislature
acted arbitrarily by increasing the punishment for lewdness with a child,
see Goudge v. State, 128 Nev. „ 287 P.3d 301, 304 (2012) ("[T]he
Legislature is empowered to define crimes and determine punishments, as
long as it does so within constitutional limits. Moreover, it is within the
Legislature's power to completely remove any judicial discretion to
determine a criminal penalty by creating mandatory sentencing schemes."
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted)), nor supported his cruel-
and-unusual-punishment argument with tangible evidence, he has not
made a clear showing that the statute is invalid. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judggzent of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
,J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Karla K. Butko
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
LtE5 -