DocketNumber: 62303
Filed Date: 6/13/2013
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
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 CuIverson 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 Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime). The district court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 60- 240 months, explaining that sentencing under the small habitual criminal statute was "fit and proper" based on O'Flaherty's prior criminal record, the timing of the instant offense in relation to her release from prison on a prior conviction, and the fact that this was a theft-related offense where she victimized society. Contrary to O'Flaherty's assertion, the record demonstrates that the district court did not rely on suspect information regarding her prior criminal history when imposing sentence. The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 207.010(1)(a), and O'Flaherty does not allege that the statute is unconstitutional. We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime and O'Flaherty's history of recidivism as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Ewing v. California,538 U.S. 11
, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion). And we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. Hardesty cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Washoe County Alternate Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A