information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable
or highly suspect evidence." Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159,
1161 (1976). A sentence that falls within the statutory limits is not
considered 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) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01
(1991) (plurality opinion).
Appellant does not argue that the district court relied on
impalpable or highly suspect evidence or that the relevant statutes are
unconstitutional. The sentence imposed was within the parameters
provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(d); NRS
200.481(2)(e)(2); NRS 205.690(2). At sentencing, the district court was
made aware of the opportunity for appellant to be gainfully employed as
well as the availability of a safe and sober living situation. Appellant
proposed services through Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services
as a condition of probation, which respondent argued against given the
gravity of appellant's crimes. We conclude that the sentence imposed is
not unreasonably disproportionate to the offense and therefore does not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment and that the district court did
not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A < •
2
cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, 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) 1947A