From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brock v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 17, 2013
No. 62759 (Nev. Oct. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. 62759

2013-10-17

SHAWN BROCK, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of sexually motivated coercion and possession of a firearm by a felon. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerome T. Tao, Judge.

Appellant Shawn Brock contends that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing by imposing maximum consecutive sentences when he "had only previously been served prison sentences of 12-32 months," constituting cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree.

We have consistently afforded the district court wide discretion in its sentencing decision, see, e.g., Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987), and it is within that discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). Here, the district court noted that Brock fit the definition of a "predator" and imposed consecutive 28-72 month sentences after considering the nature of the crime-which included forcing a woman to perform oral sex on him at gunpoint-and Brock's prior criminal history. The sentences are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 207.190; NRS 207.193(4); NRS 202.360(1), and Brock does not allege that those statutes are unconstitutional or that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence, see Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). We do not believe that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the crime, see Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion), and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

The fast track response submitted by the State does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because the text is not double-spaced. Counsel for the State is cautioned that the failure to comply with the formatting requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

_____________, J.

Hardesty

_____________, J.

Parraguirre

_____________, J.

Cherry
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge

Clark County Public Defender

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Brock v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Oct 17, 2013
No. 62759 (Nev. Oct. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Brock v. State

Case Details

Full title:SHAWN BROCK, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Oct 17, 2013

Citations

No. 62759 (Nev. Oct. 17, 2013)