Cloutier (Jason) v. State ( 2015 )

 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 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 sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the
relevant statutes, see NRS 484C.130; NRS 484C.440(1), and, as we
concluded above, NRS 484C.130 and NRS 484C.440 are not
unconstitutional. Further, appellant caused the deaths of two people
while driving under the influence and has a history of driving under the
influence. We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly
disproportionate to the crime as to constitute cruel and unusual
punishment.
Finally, appellant contends that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing a life sentence rather than a definite term of 25
years in prison as authorized by statute. See NRS 484C.440(1).
Specifically, he argues that the district court did not consider that he has
not had the benefit of long-term rehabilitative services and that he will be
deprived of such services in light of his life sentence. However, the district
court expressly noted that it considered his sentencing argument and
memorandum, both of which entreated the district court to impose a 25-
year prison term so that he could take advantage of programs to treat his
substance abuse and mental health problems. Further, appellant has not
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ceo
alleged that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect
evidence. See Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976).
We therefore conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that the
district court abused its discretion in this instance. See Houk v. State, 103
Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) (affording the district court
wide discretion in sentencing decisions).
Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
State Public Defender/Carson City
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 970149