Opinion
No. 57933.
09-14-2011
Christopher A. DOLLAR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Valerie Adair, Judge.
Appellant Christopher A. Dollar contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence constituting cruel and unusual punishment because he “didn't physically injure the victim” and it is “his first adult offense.” This court will not disturb a district court's sentencing determination absent an abuse of discretion. Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). Dollar has not alleged that the district court relied solely on impalpable or highly suspect evidence or that the sentencing statutes are unconstitutional. See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 489–90 (2009). Dollar's consecutive prison terms of 19–48 months and 60–180 months fall within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 199.480(1)(a) ; NRS 200.380(2) ; see also NRS 176.035(1), and the sentence is not “so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience,” 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). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, and we
The Hon. Douglas E. Smith, District Judge, presided over the sentencing hearing.
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Although we filed the fast track statement submitted by Dollar, it fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure. The statement of facts section refers to matters in the record without specific citation to the appendix, see NRAP 3C(e)(l)(C) ; NRAP 28(e)(1). Counsel for Dollar is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements may result in the fast track statement being returned, unfiled, to be correctly prepared, NRAP 32(e), and in the imposition of sanctions, NRAP 3C(n).
--------