Beard (Jesse) v. State

Opinion

motion. The district court found that counsel was not "far off to have told Mr. Beard . . . it would be likely that, assuming the State was seeking large habitual that I likely would sentence [him] as a large habitual . . . and would likely result in a life sentence as opposed to the 8 to 20 that was being offered." The district court also found that Beard understood the plea offer and the sentencing consequences and entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Our review of the record reveals that Beard failed to either provide a substantial, fair, and just reason which required the withdrawal of his plea, see Crawford, 117 Nev. at 721, 30 P.3d at 1125, or demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. „ 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1405-06 (2012); Lafter v. Cooper, 566 U.S.

, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012). Therefore, because Beard failed to satisfy his burden and prove that his plea was invalid, see Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 190, 87 P.3d 533, 537 (2004), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion, Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. 139, 144, 159 P.3d 1096, 1098 (2007).

Second, Beard contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence constituting cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree.

This court will not disturb a district court's sentencing determination absent an abuse of discretion. Parrish v. State, 116 Nev. 982, 989, 12 P.3d 953, 957 (2000). Beard 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). Beard's prison term of 8-20 years falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A 207.010(1)(a), and is not so unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and his history of recidivism as to shock the conscience, 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 at sentencing, and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

J.

J.

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) 1947A ageP