Williams (Mathew) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams (Mathew) v. State

DecidedSeptember 18, 2013

Docket62302

StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams (Mathew) v. State (Williams (Mathew) 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

Williams (Mathew) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

argues that the statute violates the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment because it imposes a sentence that is disproportionate to the offense, is greater than necessary to meet society's interests, and is overly severe when compared with the sentences imposed by other jurisdictions. Because Williams has not demonstrated that the Legislature acted arbitrarily by increasing the punishment for lewdness with a child, see Goudge v. State, 128 Nev. „ 287 P.3d 301, 304 (2012) ("[T]he Legislature is empowered to define crimes and determine punishments, as long as it does so within constitutional limits. Moreover, it is within the Legislature's power to completely remove any judicial discretion to determine a criminal penalty by creating mandatory sentencing schemes." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)), nor supported his cruel- and-unusual-punishment argument with tangible evidence, he has not made a clear showing that the statute is invalid. Accordingly, we ORDER the judggzent of conviction AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

,J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

LtE5 -

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

argues that the statute violates the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment because it imposes a sentence that is disproportionate to the offense, is greater than necessary to meet society's interests, and is overly severe when compared with the sentences imposed by other jurisdictions. Because Williams has not demonstrated that the Legislature acted arbitrarily by increasing the punishment for lewdness with a child, see Goudge v. State, 128 Nev. „ 287 P.3d 301, 304 (2012) ("[T]he Legislature is empowered to define crimes and determine punishments, as long as it does so within constitutional limits. Moreover, it is within the Legislature's power to completely remove any judicial discretion to determine a criminal penalty by creating mandatory sentencing schemes." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)), nor supported his cruel- and-unusual-punishment argument with tangible evidence, he has not made a clear showing that the statute is invalid. Accordingly, we ORDER the judggzent of conviction AFFIRMED.