JOHNSON v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Johnson claims his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment because it was so disproportionate to the offense and the mitigating factors that it shocks the conscience. 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).

Johnson's sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 200.030(4)(b)(1), and Johnson does not allege that statute is unconstitutional. We conclude the sentence imposed is not grossly disproportionate to the crime and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.