determination absent an abuse of discretion. Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125 (2001). Here, the district court denied Thomas' request for an evidentiary hearing because he provided only a bare claim that would not entitle him to relief even if true, see Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984), and denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the record otherwise demonstrated that his plea was valid. The record supports these determinations. See Crawford, 117 Nev. at 721-22, 30 P.3d at 1125-26. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas' request for an evidentiary hearing and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Second, Thomas argues that the district court abused its discretion by adjudicating him as a habitual criminal solely because it was presented with the requisite amount of prior convictions without undertaking a weighing analysis on the record. Our review of the record reveals that the district court noted that it was "just and proper" to sentence Thomas as a habitual criminal and reflects that the district court followed the sentencing recommendation of both parties. Moreover, a district court is not required to make particularized findings on the record. See Hughes v. State, 116 Nev. 327, 333, 996 P.2d 890, 893 (2000). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987). Third, Thomas argues that three concurrent sentences of 8 to 20 years constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is excessive to achieve the goals of punishment. We disagree. Thomas was sentenced under the small habitual criminal statute because of his multiple prior felony convictions and for his role in bringing a minor into the state and

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A forcing her to serve as a child prostitute. See Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (noting that a sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment unless it is so grossly disproportionate to the crime that it shocks the conscience); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000- 01 (1991) (plurality opinion). Thomas' sentence falls within the statutory parameters, see NRS 207.010(1)(a), and he does not contend that the statute fixing punishment is unconstitutional. We conclude that this claim lacks merit. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Law Office of Scott P. Eichhorn, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

• 4 ;IA : , ),e4a1 4:4:11(11