Giarmo (Angel) v. State ( 2014 )

 The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by
the relevant statute, see NRS 207.010(1)(b), and Giarmo does not allege
that the statute is unconstitutional. Further, this court has consistently
observed that "NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent
crimes"; rather, they are a consideration within the district court's
sentencing discretion. Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800,
805 (1992); see Tillema v. State, 112 Nev. 266, 271, 914 P.2d 605, 608
(1996). We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly
disproportionate to the crime and Giarmo's history of recidivism as to
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Ewing v. California, 538
U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion).
Next, Giarmo contends that the State breached the terms of
the plea agreement by seeking habitual criminal treatment. We disagree.
The written plea agreement and the plea canvass transcript
demonstrate that Giarmo reasonably understood that the State would be
free to argue for any appropriate sentence if a court "confirms probable
cause against [her] for new criminal charges" prior to sentencing. See
Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383, 387, 990 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1999) ("A plea
agreement is construed according to what the defendant reasonably
understood when he or she entered the plea."). Prior to sentencing,
Giarmo was charged with battery by a prisoner. The sentencing court
concluded that the finding of probable cause based on affidavit review in
the battery case was sufficient to permit the State to freely argue for any
sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. We conclude from this
record that the State did not breach the terms or the spirit of its
agreement with Giarmo See Sparks v. State, 121 Nev. 107, 110, 110 P.3d
486, 487 (2005) ("When the State enters into a plea agreement, it is held to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance with
respect to both the terms and the spirit of the plea bargain." (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Having considered Giarmo's contentions and concluding that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
.41 va_ J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) (947A e