Cogmon (Cecil) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                 requires a sentencing court to exercise its discretion and weigh the
    appropriate factors for and against the habitual criminal statute before
    adjudicating a person as a habitual criminal "); see also Arajakis v. State,
    
    108 Nev. 976
    , 983, 
    843 P.2d 800
    , 805 (1992) ("NRS 207.010 makes no
    special allowance for non-violent crimes or for the remoteness of
    convictions."). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion by adjudicating appellant as a habitual criminal.
    Appellant next argues that his sentence to life with the
    possibility of parole after ten years in prison constitutes cruel and unusual
    punishment. 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 statute,        see NRS 207.010, and
    appellant does not allege that the statute is unconstitutional. We are not
    convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) (947
    crime and appellant's history of recidivism as to constitute cruel and
    unusual punishment.     See Ewing v. California, 
    638 U.S. 11
    , 29 (2003)
    (plurality opinion).
    Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that
    no relief is warranted, we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    Pitletta                J.
    Pickering
    •
    ctaS                        J.                                    J.
    Parraguirre                              Saitta
    cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
    Jonathan E. MacArthur
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1 94 Th e
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 63725

Filed Date: 6/11/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014