Harris (Mia) v. State ( 2013 )

 appellant does not challenge the statute as unconstitutional. We are not
convinced that the sentence is unreasonably disproportionate to the
gravity of the offense so as to violate the proscription against cruel and
unusual punishment. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003)
(plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991)
(plurality opinion).
To the extent appellant argues that the district court abused
its discretion in sentencing appellant as it did, we discern no abuse of
discretion in this instance. Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d
1376, 1379 (1987); Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161
(1976) (recognizing that this court will not interfere with sentence imposed
"[sic, 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").
Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, J.
,J.
Hardesty
Parragu Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
ffai [WM EVIEROMM, `` L''" T;R:ri.0435"7-70 IIUM