ARREOLA v. STATE (2023)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Arreola argues the district court's sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In particular, Arreola argues his sentence was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience, the district court failed to consider mitigating factors, and a less severe punishment would have served the purposes of punishment just as effectively as the sentence imposed.

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).

Arreola's sentence of 8 to 20 years in prison is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see 2013 Nev. Stat., ch. 229, § 3, at 977-78 (formerly NRS 193.330(1)(a)(1)); NRS 201.230, and Arreola does not allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. Moreover, the district court stated that it had considered Arreola's sentencing memorandum and character letters at the sentencing hearing. Arreola's counsel also argued at the sentencing hearing that probation was warranted for several reasons, and there is no indication the district court failed to consider these arguments or the mitigating evidence before it. After review, 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.