CONEJO v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Conejo contends his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because the district court imposed the maximum terms allowed by statute. We will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the district court “[s]o long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of 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). Regardless of its severity, “[a] sentence 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 Culverson 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 the 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 consecutive sentences of 8 to 20 years in prison are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.330(1)(a)(1); NRS 201.230(2), and Conejo does not allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. Conejo also does not allege the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. We have considered the sentences and the crimes, and we conclude the sentences imposed are not grossly disproportionate to the crimes and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.