Anderson (Dustin) v. State

NRS 207.010(1)(a). Anderson does not allege that the statutes imposing punishment are unconstitutional, and we do not believe that the punishment imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime and Anderson's criminal history as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979)); see also Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1

Hardesty

Parraguirre Cherry cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge

Cannon & Tannery

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

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

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A ^-