Murdock (Marty) v. State

 Murdock also contends that his maximum and consecutive
prison terms constitute cruel and unusual punishment because they shock
the conscience and offend human dignity. However, Murdock has not
alleged that the relevant statutes are unconstitutional, see Blume v. State,
112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996), his sentence falls within the
parameters of those statutes, see NRS 176.035(1); NRS 193.130(2)(c); MRS
205.060(2); NRS 205.273(3), and we are not convinced that the sentence is
so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and his long
history of felony recidivism as to shock the conscience, see Ewing v.
California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v.
Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion); Blume, 112
Nev. at 475, 915 P.2d at 284. Accordingly, we conclude that Murdock's
sentence does not violate the constitutional proscriptions against cruel and
unusual punishment.
Having concluded that Murdock is not entitled to relief, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, J.
Hardesty
J. J.
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge
Patricia C. Halstead
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cktr,