Giarmo (Angel) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Giarmo (Angel) v. State

DecidedApril 10, 2014

Docket62964

StatusUnpublished

This text of Giarmo (Angel) v. State (Giarmo (Angel) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giarmo (Angel) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 207.010(1)(b), and Giarmo does not allege that the statute is unconstitutional. Further, this court has consistently observed that "NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent crimes"; rather, they are a consideration within the district court's sentencing discretion. Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 (1992); see Tillema v. State, 112 Nev. 266, 271, 914 P.2d 605, 608 (1996). We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime and Giarmo's history of recidivism as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion). Next, Giarmo contends that the State breached the terms of the plea agreement by seeking habitual criminal treatment. We disagree. The written plea agreement and the plea canvass transcript demonstrate that Giarmo reasonably understood that the State would be free to argue for any appropriate sentence if a court "confirms probable cause against [her] for new criminal charges" prior to sentencing. See Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383, 387, 990 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1999) ("A plea agreement is construed according to what the defendant reasonably understood when he or she entered the plea."). Prior to sentencing, Giarmo was charged with battery by a prisoner. The sentencing court concluded that the finding of probable cause based on affidavit review in the battery case was sufficient to permit the State to freely argue for any sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. We conclude from this record that the State did not breach the terms or the spirit of its agreement with Giarmo See Sparks v. State, 121 Nev. 107, 110, 110 P.3d 486, 487 (2005) ("When the State enters into a plea agreement, it is held to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance with respect to both the terms and the spirit of the plea bargain." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Having considered Giarmo's contentions and concluding that they lack merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

.41 va_ J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, 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) (947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, see NRS 207.010(1)(b), and Giarmo does not allege that the statute is unconstitutional. Further, this court has consistently observed that "NRS 207.010 makes no special allowance for non-violent crimes"; rather, they are a consideration within the district court's sentencing discretion. Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 (1992); see Tillema v. State, 112 Nev. 266, 271, 914 P.2d 605, 608 (1996). We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime and Giarmo's history of recidivism as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion). Next, Giarmo contends that the State breached the terms of the plea agreement by seeking habitual criminal treatment. We disagree. The written plea agreement and the plea canvass transcript demonstrate that Giarmo reasonably understood that the State would be free to argue for any appropriate sentence if a court "confirms probable cause against [her] for new criminal charges" prior to sentencing. See Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383, 387, 990 P.2d 1258, 1260 (1999) ("A plea agreement is construed according to what the defendant reasonably understood when he or she entered the plea."). Prior to sentencing, Giarmo was charged with battery by a prisoner. The sentencing court concluded that the finding of probable cause based on affidavit review in the battery case was sufficient to permit the State to freely argue for any sentence under the terms of the plea agreement. We conclude from this record that the State did not breach the terms or the spirit of its agreement with Giarmo See Sparks v. State, 121 Nev. 107, 110, 110 P.3d 486, 487 (2005) ("When the State enters into a plea agreement, it is held to

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance with respect to both the terms and the spirit of the plea bargain." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Having considered Giarmo's contentions and concluding that they lack merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

.41 va_ J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, 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) (947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Giarmo (Angel) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giarmo-angel-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack