Murdock (Marty) v. State

Murdock also contends that his maximum and consecutive prison terms constitute cruel and unusual punishment because they shock the conscience and offend human dignity. However, Murdock has not alleged that the relevant statutes are unconstitutional, see Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996), his sentence falls within the parameters of those statutes, see NRS 176.035(1); NRS 193.130(2)(c); MRS 205.060(2); NRS 205.273(3), and we are not convinced that the sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and his long history of felony recidivism as to shock the conscience, see Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion); Blume, 112 Nev. at 475, 915 P.2d at 284. Accordingly, we conclude that Murdock's sentence does not violate the constitutional proscriptions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Having concluded that Murdock is not entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

, J.

Hardesty

J. J. Douglas Cherry cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge

Patricia C. Halstead

Attorney General/Carson City

Washoe County District Attorney

Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A cktr,