Zaragoza-Romero (Julio) v. State ( 2013 )

 We have consistently afforded the district court wide
discretion in its sentencing decision, see, e.g., Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659,
664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and will refrain from interfering with the
sentence imposed by the district court "[s] o long as the record does not
demonstrate 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). Regardless of its severity, a sentence that is "within the statutory
limits is not 'cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing
punishment 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) (quoting Culverson 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) (explaining
that the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality
between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is
grossly disproportionate).
We conclude that Zaragoza-Romero's contentions lack merit.
His sentence of 60-156 months imprisonment falls within statutory
parameters, see NRS 453.3385(2), and he does not allege that the statute
fixing punishment is unconstitutional. The prosecutor's statement did not
constitute impalpable or highly suspect evidence, and Zaragoza-Romero's
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
WitiMMENEMIERREMEMMIRMESENSEXTVIMP riCIEN ,115N;z4WW-11-1
sentence is not so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute
cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2
J.
Douglas
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge
Elko County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Elko County District Attorney
Elko County Clerk
2Although we filed the fast track statement and response, these
documents fail to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Neither brief contains margins of at least 1-inch on all four sides, and the
fast track response is not double-spaced and the footnote text is not the
same size as the body of the text. See NRAP 3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4), (5).
We caution counsel for both parties that future failure to comply with the
Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in the imposition of
sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .64.w.
I NNW EBEIZENKOMMEMEEMillIBEEI