CARROLL v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Carroll claims that his sentences amount to cruel and unusual punishment. 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).

In Docket No. 83102, Carroll failed to surrender as required after having been granted bail on “various” felony charges in an otherwise unrelated case. He was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of “attempted failing to appear.” In Docket No. 83103, Carroll was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea of attempted possession of document or personal identifying information to establish false status or identity. In each case, the district court initially imposed a sentence of 19 to 48 months, suspended the sentences, placed Carroll on probation for a period not to exceed five years, and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. The district court subsequently revoked Carroll's probation in both cases and imposed the underlying sentences.

The sentences imposed are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see 1999 Nev. Stat., ch. 288, § 1, at 1186-87 (former NRS 193.130(2)(e)); NRS 193.330(1)(a)(5), (6); NRS 199.335(2)(a); NRS 205.465(2), and Carroll does not allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. We conclude the sentences imposed are not grossly disproportionate to the crimes and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, this claim is without merit.

Carroll also claims the district court may have erred by including language in each order indicating that the sentences in the two cases were aggregated. Carroll fails to demonstrate the district court's alleged error affected his substantial rights. Therefore, to the extent it was error, it was harmless. See NRS 178.598.

For the foregoing reasons, we

ORDER the judgments of conviction AFFIRMED.